Slashdot Mirror


Worm Claimed For Apple OS X

SkiifGeek writes "Controversy is slowly building over the development of a claimed new worm that targets OS X systems, dubbed by its inventor Rape.osx. Using a currently undisclosed vulnerability in mDNSResponder, the worm is said to give access to root as it spreads across the local network. As with a number of recent Apple-related security discoveries, the author, InfoSec Sellout, is delaying reporting the vulnerability to Apple until after completing full testing of the worm. While the worm has yet to leave a testing environment (with 1,500 OS X systems), it is bound to join the likes of Inqtana and Leap as known OS X malware."

23 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. *ahem* by Duncan3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As with a number of recent Apple-related security discoveries, the author, InfoSec Sellout, is delaying reporting the vulnerability to Apple until after completing full testing of the worm.

    If by fully testing you mean "auctioning it to the highest bidder" then yea.

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
  2. I question the ethics, and my legality by Swift2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all, if he's found a real vulnerability, he reports it. I don't care if it's Apple or Linux or even Windows. "Waiting until I finish it" is a disgusting excuse. Will he sell it to the bad guys? Is this free publicity for some jerk? I think the Slashdot world ought to have a serious discussion of this kind of jerk. I think Congress might to. If what he's doing isn't illegal now, maybe it should be.

    1. Re:I question the ethics, and my legality by Tobenisstinky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good idea. However, a serious discussion on /. is unlikely.

      --
      wha'? where am i?
    2. Re:I question the ethics, and my legality by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like a great plan. Make it compulsory to report vulnerabilities eh? Maybe even ban the selling of vulnerabilities. Kinda makes you wonder why any third party would bother looking for them.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:I question the ethics, and my legality by QuietObserver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From my point of view, the original argument never said anything about making vulnerability reporting compulsory, but that concealing a vulnerability is morally reprehensible, and claiming to keep a vulnerability secret until an exploit is finished is a disgusting excuse.

    4. Re:I question the ethics, and my legality by fox1324 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If what he's doing isn't illegal now, maybe it should be.


      Maybe it shouldn't be. There are hundreds of /. threads filled up with complaints about the US government and legal system. Our rights are constantly eroded by attempts to 'legislate morality'. Repeat with me: just because something is unethical or immoral does NOT mean it needs to be illegal. Ethics and morals are nothing more than opinions, and they vary greatly from person to person.

      Neglecting to report a vulnerability is not remotely criminal, no matter how much you disagree with his motivation.

    5. Re:I question the ethics, and my legality by samkass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure you're trying to be sarcastic, but it would DEFINITELY be a good idea to include everyone from your random teenage mom's basement hacker to Theo de Raadt in the discussion. Just because someone has done great things for the community it doesn't mean he's going about addressing exploits in the best way.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    6. Re:I question the ethics, and my legality by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because Congress is well known for its mature and insightful discussion of computer and network security issues.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  3. Tipping the scales? by dsdtzero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fact that the breaking news on slashdot is "someone found the third way to attack a mac machine" is a compelling argument to purchase a mac over a PC. Unless someone can explain to me how this is the seed of an impending snowball of mac-targeted malware.

    1. Re:Tipping the scales? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, exactly. Three proofs of concept vs. thousands, maybe millions, of vulnerabilities in the wild.

      The author claims, "While it is nothing special compared to Windows based Malware it does prove a point -- Apple Computers are just as susceptible to Malware as Windows based ones." Oh, bullshit. The fact that this particular security vulnerability exists does not mean that OS X is just as much a wide-open target as Windows is.

      In the "Classic" MacOS days, there was a fair amount of Mac malware -- never as much as in the PC world, of course, but plenty of it running around. Since OS X became the standard, this hasn't happened. The "vulnerability through popularity" argument just doesn't hold up to this fact.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  4. Re:worm in apple? by catwh0re · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I have no doubt that worms etc can be created for OSX (or any OS, given enough time.) I'm not really fond of companies blowing their trumpet until they're certain. It's very rich to claim all that publicity without notifing the vendor, or even being 100% certain. Otherwise it comes across as yet another company that is trying to claim solely for the benefit of the massive attention that it will draw on the company. Whether it's a fiasco involving wifi hardware or an antivirus company claiming endless vulnerabilities to sell their "protection tools". The apple community is well versed in frauds and half-truths spun as a "massive vulnerability" who cry wolf.

  5. Okay... let me get this straight... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Serious question here:

    Somebody writes a worm for OSX that works across a specific test network (of which we have no clue as to settings, layout, patch levels, etc etc), and it's really, really, really big news. Media orgs around the planet sound the klaxon, and (nearly) everyone gets all hyper-ventilated. Claims of "OSX is just as vulnerable!!!1111!!" will fly off the pages.

    Meanwhile, the next near-periodic iteration of MSFT-specific malware in-the-wild will get not so much as a grunt outside of security circles (such as SANS ISC and F-Secure's blog as ferinstances). It will likely subvert 40x as many victims in its first hour, and the media won't say so much as 'boo' about it.

    Perspective (at least outside of security and some geek circles)? Never heard of it.

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Okay... let me get this straight... by Trillan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see any suggestions this be buried, only that it be kept in perspective. (Which, I'll grant, is impossible.)

    2. Re:Okay... let me get this straight... by BlueDjinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know of a single Mac user or vendor who has ever claimed that OS X is *COMPLETELY* invulnerable to viruses/etc, only that there hasn't been a demonstrable, malicious, in-the-wild true OS X virus released YET, which is true.

      Major difference. In fact, every Mac user I know expects a "true" virus or two to show up for OS X sooner or later, but what of it? So the ratio will go from a bazillion to zero to a bazillion to one or two.

      Apple has roughly a 2.5% worldwide market share--wake me when they have anywhere close to 2.5% as many viruses as Windows and I'll start being overly concerned.

  6. Market share? by Dan_Bercell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I havent really looked at the market share percentages of OSes recently, has Apple really grown large enough for Virus makers to start targeting Apple?

  7. Re:Is mDNS even routable? by dch24 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bundle it with a Windows worm. Exploit Macs on the same subnet as Windows boxes. Then the infected Macs scan for vulnerable Windows boxes and spread the infection. Every vector is useful in an attacker's bad of tricks.

  8. 1500 Test stations? by theolein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apart from the claim by infosec sellout sounding less than adult - he says the payload was "weaponised" - and his claim that Apple will somehow not fix the "root cause" of the vulnerability if he gives it to them now - extortion anyone? mDNSResponder is Open Source - I seriously question how some independent reearcher can have, as he claims, a test base of 1500 systems. A big company with $1million to throw around might have that, or a university, but I seriously doubt he has the place or resources to afford a test base of this size unless he is using a local university or school, and judging by his spelling and grammar, he is either not English native or he is a teenager, or both. That says nothing about the veracity (truth) of his claim but it is somewhat juvenile, the whole thing.

  9. also quite useless by Jeremy_Bee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IMO the really funny thing is that this joker decided to use a Bonjour vulnerability to work on, when everything I've heard indicates a major reworking of the Bonjour code in Leopard anyway.

    Isn't this kinda like working out a vulnerability in AppleTalk a month before they stopped using it?

    1. Re:also quite useless by zootm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many of the major Windows worms and so forth target vulnerabilities which have already been fixed (and the fixes pushed out) months before. Not only will many not upgrade to Leopard, if the OS X userbase is similar to the Windows userbase (I'm not sure if it is, but still), many will simply not click the button to install the updates, and leave themselves vulnerable.

  10. Re:pfft by Divebus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Windows camp has nothing to gloat about as long as I'm getting a hundred spam messages a day from compromised Windows machines.

    --

    Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
  11. Covered in shit? by GrahamCox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I frequently hear the old chestnut that the only reason Macs aren't infested with malware is their lack of market share. Whether true or not, it's a funny argument, especially if the person using it is defending their choice of Windows.

    "I'm not going to use Mac because while it may be clean now, I could get covered in shit at any time!"

    "But you're already covered in shit".

    "Errr... yes. But I'm sorta used to it..."

  12. Re:rape.osx is fitting by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This could be a big problem on some university campuses, however. Mine, for example, has a huge flat-topology network that was deployed in the '80s (maybe before) and has been upgraded piecemeal without anyone really knowing how the whole thing fits together anymore. When I plug my laptop in, I get around 10KB/s of background traffic sent to the broadcast address hitting me. Running tcpdump shows that most of this is iTunes DAAP. Does this exploit also run on Windows? Apple bundle MDNSResponder with iTunes on Windows, so if that's where the exploit is then it could also be a problem there. It might also be a problem on other *NIX systems that bundle it, since Apple have released it under an Apache 2.0 license (cue all the 'Apple just takes from Open Source and never gives anything back' trolls).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Actually... by LKM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only people I always see spouting such crap are the people who claim to hate Apple fanboys. I've never seen an Apple fanboy make absurd claims like yours. This is like a fucking self-fullfilling prophecy. Every damn article about Apple is run over by stupid Anti-Apple trolls who write hundreds of comments laughing about imaginary Apple fanboys and the imaginary stupid things they say.

    Here's an idea: Shut up, and let those who are interested in the article discuss it. Thanks.