Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X Trojan Horse Infects MP3s
frequnkn writes "The Mac News Network reports that Intego has anounced an update to their anti-virus app for snagging the first Mac OS X Trojan horse, MP3Concept (MP3Virus.Gen), which exploits a weakness in Mac OS X where applications can appear to be other types of files."
In six years, Intego has made a name for itself in the Internet security and privacy market for Macintosh.
I always wonder where the sources are for the majority of viruses. It is quite ironic that a company selling you a fix happens to find the problem and releases the solution for the low price of 59.95. Yet a goggle and Symantec Security search didn't yield anything about MP3Virus.Gen. Hmmm - it's awfully nice they fixed this virus so fast.
I can stand that.
Does my speculation about the RIAA's involvement in the creation of an MP3 trojan put me in the tin foil hat crowd?
So what?
Mac OS X can have trojans. Mac OS X can have viruses. Mac OS X can have security issues.
It's just a lot harder to exploit all of these things on Mac OS X for numerous logistical, technical, and statistical reasons.
It is a real concept. There is an example of the trojan, or "virus" (sic), here: http://www.scoop.se/~blgl/virus.mp3.sit
However, it seems that this may be at best questionable, as the "proof of concept" is nothing more than a standalone CFM application that has been given a creator type of 'APPL' (recognized by Mac OS X as a Carbon application), but with the file extension '.mp3', the standard mp3 icon, and the contents of an mp3 (which Mac OS X displays to the user an mp3). While the file does indeed appear at first glance to be an ordinary mp3, what can admittedly be potentially dangerous, it is in fact an application.
Additionally, as a CFM application, the file needs to be transported in such a way as to keep the resource fork intact, massively reducing its utility.
I predict a future security update with disallow this behavior...
This does not change the fact that Mac OS X is fundamentally and philosophically far more secure than alternatives.
.. and I just bought a G4 PowerBook too!
That's it, I'm selling this, maybe I'll get one of those Sparc laptops instead..
- Cowboy
what, what?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8 &oe=UTF-8&safe=off&frame=right&th=631707378ffe9292 &seekm=blgl-5D750C.02150821032004%40news.bahnhof.s e#link6
It appears that this is merely a proof of concept virus, hence, it is utterly benign. It was not made with any malicious intent, but to demonstrate one way that OS X could be exploited. The discussion group is concerned with making OS X more secure, not less.
Somehow, Intego got wind of it and blew it out of proportion, but I suppose it is theoretically possible that future viruses could be modeled on it. However I'm sure that Apple could, even more quickly, release a security update that fixes this.
I suppose I'll start to panic as soon as apple acknowledges it, rather than take the word of a company trying to sell me anti-virus software.
I'm switching to Windows!
What kind of OS X user would be caught dead using such ancient, PC-originated technology (and I use that term loosely) as an MP3?
It's bad enough that they'll be shunned by all their iPod-wearing, dual-CPU-owning, Mac cabal member friends, but now their computer get pwned? Talk about kicking them while they're down.
True story.
What this article doesn't mention is how (or if) the code gets around the normal OS X restrictions requiring that one enters an administrator's password. Even if applications can be hidden, I question the amount of damage they can do... Surely nobody will enter an admin password requested by an ".mp3" file.
Besides, this isn't a virus so much as a security flaw. Why pay $60 for software when Apple will surely release a patch soon?
Oh, and for all the PC assholes who are currently saying "In your face, mac zealots" or whatnot--nobody claims that OS X is bulletproof--no computer system is. Nevertheless, it seems to be a lot more secure than, say, Windows, which has security problems all of the time.
Heh... Interesting that the first trojan horse/virus yet to be seen for OS X uniquely exploits the discordance between the "Classic" pre-OS X way of specifying file types (File Type/Creator metadata) and the new, inherited-from-Windows, file extension method.
.mp3 extension... the Finder thus displays an MP3 icon for it yet launches it as an application when the user double-clicks.
The basic gist of this trojan from what I've read so far (there is very little information aside from what Intego has on their own web site) is that it is a file with type AAPL (executable application) but with an
What this basically comes down to, then, is the Finder making the wrong decision as to how to present the file to the user. Specifically that it presents it in one way, but acts upon it (when double-clicked) in the other. Whether it should first obey the deprecated file type metadata or the file extension is left to be argued about... what's certain is that it should always behave with the file the same way it presents it. I predict a bug fix for this will be in OS X shortly.
Somebody on macnn.com pointed out this: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8 &oe=UTF-8&safe=off&frame=right&th=631707378ffe9292 &seekm=blgl-5D750C.02150821032004%40news.bahnhof.s e#link6
I have my doubts about this trojan, as I opined on my website at destination-life.com, but there is one problem: this proof of concept at this link:
At Google Groups
I opened the file in BBEdit, and it appears that there is in fact executable code in the file, but it doesn't appear evident to me how the binary code would be executed if the audio file is opened inside of a music player.
Hopefully this ends up being a hoax, or at least some more details come out soon.
We needed an OS X virus just to liven things up! The ratio of viruses in the wild to lab viruses leads one to believe that the Anti virus companies created some to keep them in business. The WildList should be enough to keep all the Antivirus companies on their toes now.
Have you Meta Moderated t
This virus sucks unless it has ogg support. Jeez! Mac OS X is so lame..
Trojans aren't new in the Mac world, of course. There have been viruses made for the original Mac OS, but very, very few in comparison to, say, MS-DOS and Windows: Approximately 50 Mac OS viruses compared to 20,000+ viruses and their ilk in the Windows world.
The method in which this trojan infects isn't new: Windows viruses often hide their true extension in the same way as this empty-payload Mac OS X trojan.
What is significant is what a payload-laden trojan could do the today's Mac OS world. As a tech, I get to see a fair audience of Macs in use and what software they use. The very concerning part is that very few (my estimate: less than 1 in 50) Macs use ANY kind of antivirus software.
Not that you can't find any: Aside from Intego (who make a fine firewall as well as their virus products), you can get Norton AntiVirus from Symantec and Virex from Network Associates. Yet, most of us don't own any AV software.
That's bad for two reasons. One: While most Windows malware we Mac users may receive by mail are harmless to our Mac OS X systems, we remain Typhoid Mary-esque carriers to other PCs. Two: Our complacency in saying that "Macs don't get viruses" does not ensure that we will not experience one later.
That "later" is now.
Further, the "security through obscurity" protection is gone with the move to OS X. It's just a UNIX OS now, no longer a relatively-closed OS, which means there are more people who are UNIX-savvy who can create malware than before. (Fortunately that also means there are plenty of Good Guys who can spot this stuff before Apple or AV vendors are made aware.)
While I doubt there will be lots of new Mac attacks soon, I would not wait until one shows up with a nasty payload. Buy some AV software and keep puttering along. I'm sure there's some ass out there with too much time on their hands who, like the guy who took the Word Macro "Concept" virus, added a payload and sent it on its way, who will love to make some pitiful Mac users suffer.
Also, consider creating a regular user account, which cannot install software. In the event that you do open something with a payload on that account, hopefully OS X's permissions will stop any attempts to change any file or program except those in that account's home folder. Thank God for the UNIX permissions system.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
The resource fork is a remnant of the pre-OS X days. Pre-Mac OS X files, including applications, had two "forks": data and resource. When Mac OS X was created, it had the ability to run its own native applications, as well as two types of "Carbon" applications, Carbon being an API that allowed portability of applications using a subset of the old Mac OS programming APIs. One type of Carbon application, CFM, uses a resource fork for, among other things, file metadata. One of these pieces of metadata is something called Type and Creator. "Type", in this case, is set to APPL, and thus identifies itself as an application. While OS X decides to display the file as an MP3, the launching behavior is that of an application - just an oversight. The issue I was referring to was the resource fork must be kept intact in order for the file to still work - and any type of binary transfer WITHOUT special handling or compression (e.g. StuffIt, MacBinary, etc) will strip the resource fork and render this little "trojan" useless.
Also, if you knew the first thing about Mac OS X, you'd readily admit that the design philosophy and fundamentals of the OS do make it far, far more secure than, say, Windows.
On of the many woes of being a Mac user is that we do not have the multitude of viral applications that Windows users have. Now that we have our first trojan, we are on the path of being like Windows users. However, it is my fear like most Windows applications, we are going to have to wait months and months before we get our next one...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
You find it ironic that a problem is found by people who make their living looking for such problems???
I have a hard time seeing why the parent is flamebait, especially when given a smile.
He *is* right in that what you have here is an honest-to-God architectural security problem with the Mac OS. It isn't a coding bug or a stupid user -- Apple clearly defines how to determine file type in their specs, which will now need to be revised.
And I think he's pretty accurate in claiming that this *does* embarass a lot of people that were making semi-bogus security claims about the Mac OS.
Had he said "Yes, now we can all tell that Mac OS X security sucks", then sure, he'd be flamebait. But he was spot-on accurate in his statement. Modding him down because you don't like the truth of something he's saying is just silly -- a religion, a text editor, or a computing platform that cannot stand up for itself on its own merits should not have you trying to suppress valid criticisms of it. If it can, it doesn't *need* you trying to suppress valid criticisms, because those are minor compared to the benefits of the platform.
May we never see th
One virus or Trojan every three years? I can stand that.
Can you understand that past performance does not indicate future performance?
Also your sample size is questionable. Classic Mac OS' history is irrelevant to Mac OS X. Mac OS X is a far more interesting and potentially lucrative target. It combines a highly capable Unix environment (home turf/holy grail for hackers) with a usually unsophisticated (wrt security) users who have no admin to watch over them. This is only the beginning, get used to that.
OS X has been out for three years. This is the first trojan/virus (giving this the benefit of the doubt). Ergo, 1 every 3 years.
Yeah, there's no admin to watch over them/us. What's your point? The system will protect the user as much as it can (have to authenticate to install/write to system areas, or create sockets on privileged ports). It's a bit more secure than Windows where a user needs a nanny standing over her slapping her wrist and saying "don't do that" or "don't open that". If it does become a target, it's more hardened. It's not like Windows saying "take me, big boy."
Type and creator are not stored in the resource
fork nor the data fork. You could think of them
as a third, fixed-size fork. At least, that's what
Siracusa of Ars Technica wrote.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
No, no, that wasn't a virus, just 10.3.2. (Note to would be flamers - I have a mac and love it!)
I downloaded this sample virus and tried to open it, but Panther told me I didn't have permission to open it. So, unless you're logged as admin it looks like it ain't gonna work.
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
The file is a CFM application. As others have pointed out, this means that it has a resource fork which it needs in order to be able to run. Thus, it must be downloaded as a compressed file. If the resource fork is stripped, it is harmless, as the payload will never be executed.
Its name ends in ".mp3", and the included icon is copied from an iTunes MP3 file, but its type code is APPL, an application. The data fork is a valid MP3 with PowerPC executable code inside the ID3 tags. When given to iTunes or another MP3 player, it simply plays the included sounds without executing code. When double-clicked on from the Finder, the surrounding bits of MP3 file appear to be ignored and the code is executed. The payload for the proof-of-concept displays a dialog box, then tells iTunes to play the file itself, presumably via AppleScript.
When double-clicked, it shows up in the dock as an application, though this could be suppressed in an actual hostile trojan just like many utility programs do. In the Finder, if one is using column view, it is identified as an Application instead of an MP3 File, and its icon is shown instead of a QuickTime-style playback bar for previewing the contents.
In terms of an actual exploit, the only thing going on that is even possibly questionable at an OS level is the presence of other stuff in the data fork before the Joy!peffpwpc tag. I am not certain if this is allowed in the definition of what a PEF executable is supposed to look like. Aside from that, there is nothing else that is tricking the OS into doing something it shouldn't do, only legally included information that is deceptive to a user who is not looking carefully at things.
NeXT did it for a good reason:
.app directory so all the resources, bitmaps, and supporting files are in that one directory. That is why I can reinstall OS X and have MS Office X and all my other applications still work without reinstalling everything. I suppose they could still do fat binaries as well if they ever decided to do so.
NeXTSTEP ran on four different hardware platforms and had fat binaries. Within the foo.app directory, there'd be foo-moto, foo-386, foo-sparc, and foo-hpux binaries. The OS would then attempt to execute the appropriate binary for the hardware platform the OS was running on.
OS X uses the
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Average Windows users know command lines?! What kind of fucked up world do you live in?
The average Windows user doesn't know how to map a network drive; doesn't know how to properly unmount a USB Storage Device in Win2k; doesn't know how to CANCEL PRINT JOBS if there isn't an annoying window from the bullshit software that pops up when you print.
The average Windows user doesn't know how to format a disk; doesn't know how to look at a full mail header, doesn't know how to Mail Merge.
The average Windows user doesn't differentiate between hard disk and "memory"; doesn't know how to clear the Recent Documents; doesn't know how to change their password.
The average Windows user hasn't used net send, ping, or even winipcfg. They don't know where to change the resolution on their monitor; they only change the Background from a right-click menu in Internet Explorer.
They have never intentionally used an F-Key that wasn't modded to do something special on their multimedia keyboard. They have no idea that Ctrl-F6 will switch between panes, so you don't need to click back and forth when designing a table in Access.
They don't know that Print Screen copies their screen to the Clipboard. Hell, they don't know what the Clipboard is.
The average Windows user doesn't know what Temp files are; has no concept of file permissions, can't make a Pivot Table; doesn't know how to uninstall programs; Has at least two things in their system tray they can't identify; has never performed a full backup of their data; and certainly has never touched their Registry.
Even tech support often doesn't know enough about the command line, like using "~1" doesn't mean you don't need the extension, or that Program Folder 8.1.1 becomes Progra~1.1 or that you can type the whole damn thing in quotes.
Maybe ten years ago the average Windows user knew something about the command line, but not anymore.
This kind of reminds me of adding extensions to the resource fork of otherwise innocuous system files in system 7-9.
One April Fools Day I installed a completely juvenile little extension called "Mouseturds" on my roommate's computer. But inside of "Mouseturds" I inserted an extension that reversed all of the text in the system. Inside of another file in the system (I believe it was directly in the Finder), I installed a second instance of the text-flipping extension.
When he first started using his computer, all of the text looked normal, but his mouse kept doing this terribly juvenile thing. "Cute, really cute." He said, removing that extension. You can't imagine his befuddlement when upon rebooting all of his text was sdrawkcab, simply for having cleaned his system. In the next few hours he drew up all sorts of crazy theories about dependencies, mounting extensions from the trash can, automatically installing programs when something is removed, and a mythical hidden second system folder. I didn't have the heart to tell him to watch the extensions list on the startup screen more carefully, but I didn't have the jaw if he decided to start swinging. He was not at all amused.
Moral of the story: No one thing is ever one thing on an apple system.
Other moral of the story: Never take a smart-alec joker as a roommate.
The ______ Agenda
In NeXTStep V1.0( and I think 2.0), the entire application was stored in a Mach-O format file. Ultimately, there were resource issues involved in trying to keep the entire application and it's resources in a single Mach-O file, which resulted in this being splitup into a diretcory containing the resources, and the Mach-O file retaining the executable data required by the system loader.
That's not all that different from how classic Mac OS apps were stored in different resource areas of a file.
The Intego Virus Barrier software just flags as "infected" any CFM executable whose name ends in a common file extension... which is why it STUPIDLY flagged as viruses the BMP, PCX and PNG plugins for Photoshop Elements. Which means it does not even check for a dot and something else before the file extension.
Proof (jpg)
Can you say "crappy" ? I'm sure you could.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
I seem to recall that common Macintosh viruses were things like MDEF (menu definition) viruses or MBDF (menubar definition) viruses or WDEF (window definition) viruses. These are the names of certain kinds of code resources on Macintosh systems that could be used to define a custom look-and-feel in certain places where necessary. To hook up an MDEF virus and get it to execute, you would insert an MDEF resource into the program (*very* easy to do), and then modify one of the MENU resources to use that MDEF to draw itself. (similarly for MBARs with MBDFs and WINDs with WDEFs). There were also certain resource numbers you could choose to hide the corresponding system resources while running the program, and you wouldn't have to do anything else to change the program.
and to see comments like "the average windows user can barely tie their shoelaces" bullshit irritates me. To be quite honest, computers to the average joe are scary. Just because they don't know how to mount a drive or know what shl ax,1 means doesn't mean their stupid.
;)
I understand there's a fear factor, I work face to face with the average windows user every day, in their home. Not knowing how to mount a drive is one thing, very forgivable. Not even eyeroll-worthy. It's when they get in a panic because their sound card 'stopped working' only to discover that they had been turning the TONE control rather than VOLUME on their speakers. Now that's sad. I don't say *most* average users are like this (well, not without data to support me), but they do certainly abound.
I hate OS wars too. But the fact is, the average Linux user (oh, I should mention, I'm not one) is a Linux user partly because they are comfortable with having to know some things about their machine in order to use it. You know, Old School, like back in the day when you simply didn't HAVE a computer if you weren't interested in delving into it. They would tend to be the sort of person that enjoys having to learn something in order to make good use of it. I believe that the majority of people do *not* want to keep filling their heads. To many people that's what school was for and that part of their life is done. It's sad, but it's a choice made for the sake of comfort. I can respect it that way, there's a lot of other things they know perhaps.
I did an install once for a Lawyer (an intelligent man, one must presume), who became upset when he discovered that our high-speed access advertized as "One click and you're there" (or something) wasn't true. Because you have to double-click a desktop icon (to open a browser or whatever) he was almost going to cancel the service. He was getting installed purely on the pressure of friends, as he had gone years without email. And he was mad as hell about the whole thing. He got really mad when I didn't have paper documentation for Internet Explorer to leave with him. I pointed out where the Help was, and that just seemed to piss him off more. He *resented* being forced to learn something new, and I tried to tell him that anything worthwhile requires some learning. I asked him if he had ALWAYS known how to drive a car. No of course not, at some point he had to do a bit of reading, get some experience, do some practice. From the look in his eye at this point I realized I was traipsing into sass-mouth territory and just dropped it. The computer was given to him by a friend, and thank every god that it wasn't running Linux.
There's no fixing them, but at least they pay us to fix their stuff for them.
Can't we all just get along?
NS 3.3 ran on four platforms. That was the last version I used, and I distinctly remember it. There were even NeXTSTEP utilities that "thinned" out these fat applications and only left the thin executable you needed.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the whole 'app is really a directory' thing is a SOLUTION to the 'resource fork' storage problem. And it allows for cleanly implemented multi-platform 'fat' binaries. Apple's Classic fat binaries were kludgy, the CODE resource fork held the 68K binary and the data fork held the PowerPC binary, hardly extensible.
I've got an OSX install on purely UFS, and sure enough, it allows you to pack x86 and PPC binaries (or multiple PPC/X86 binaries, for optimization/bitness) into the same *.app so you can have one application file that executes on multiple architectures. It might not be Apple's hacked-up old kludgy way to get a 'fat binary' but it's effectively the same result but done MUCH cleaner and capable of living on many diverse file-systems.
Imagine how cool it would be to have ONE shared 'applications' folder mounted read-only on all your clients, the x86 clients execute the x86 code from camino.app and the PPC machines execute the PPC code from the same place. It would be an administrator's utopia!
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails