Slashdot Mirror
Zombie Macs Launch DoS Attack
Cludge writes "ZDNet has a story (and several related articles) about how Symantec has discovered evidence of an all-Mac based botnet that is actively involved in a DOS attack. Apparently, security on the exploited Macs (call them iBots?) was compromised when unwary users bit-torrented pirated copies of iWork 09 and Photoshop CS4 that contained malware. From the article: 'They describe this as the "first real attempt to create a Mac botnet" and note that the zombie Macs are already being used for nefarious purposes.'"
I can almost hear the words of denial from the Mac Fanboys already. I can't hear the exact words, but I can sense the general whine.
Like any other UNIX OS, OSX is less vulnerable to such attacks than Windows, but it's far from immune. The truth is that a Mac is less likely to be targetted because it's a minority operating system.
If your intention is to create a large botnet, you are of course going to target the most popular operating system. Rightly, or wrongly, by most metrics, Windows is the most popular OS. That's why people rarely bother try to create a botnet from macs.
I suspect that this botnet has been created by a geek that is sick to death of uneducated Mac fanboyism, and in a small way, I have respect for that.
A small part of me wants OSX to become a majority OS, just so I can see Mac fanboys eat their own words!
OSX is a reasonable operating system whose reputation is ruined by technologically uneducated users :(
What the hell are you talking about?
Malware ie: trojans have been around for ages. This has nothing to do with the overall security of the OS and everything with the security threat the user is to themselves.
If a user is tricked into installing malware on a machine, the machine is infected with malware.
It's a shame people think Macs are somehow magically protected against viruses and other nasty computer stuff, merely by virtue of the manufacturer and operating system. It's probably more of a shame that Apple has, in the past at least, marketed Macs as being (more?) immune to viruses than PCs - something which somewhat true, but only for statistical reasons.
It's like STDs - if you're careless and go sticking your junk everywhere without taking precautions, you'll probably catch something cruel, eventually.
Sounds like someone has their panties in a twist. You might forget that strict permission levels don't imply security when the person behind the keyboard is an idiot.
Om, nomnomnom...
Technologically uneducated users? Can you explain to me how, at the last developer's conference I attended for an open source CMS, Apple users outnumbered IBM clone users by probably 3 or 4 to 1?
People who speak in generalities and think only in generalities. Problem is, that's not how the world works.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Purposefully installing malicious software does not indicate a vulnerability. The user intentionally installed a piece of software that is doing exactly what it is designed to do.
There isn't an operating system on the planet that can protect you (or itself) from fraudulent user activity.
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
I'm a user who doesn't run applications downloaded from completely untrustworthy sources like pirate p2p networks and you're correct -- I don't need a virus or malware checker.
Fixed that for you.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Essentially, this makes it impervious to viruses. Even trojans are thwarted because smart users (Mac users) don't execute programs they don't know the origin of.
No computer system can withstand prolonged exposure to idiot owners. Macs are no exception. Your statement only confirms that :D
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
This is simply unproven for all the reasons outlined in your post. Until you see *UNIX widely deployed as a "desktop" OS, all claims that UNIX is inherently more secure than Windows are nothing but untested theories.
Wake me up when *UNIX has 50% of the desktops and then we can debate which operating system is more secure.
Sorry, how does conficker spread again?
How would they even know what to learn in the first place?
And rightfully so. If the damn thing needs that much care and feeding, it is defective and should be returned!
Seriously? A download, installed, and password prompting program is a vulnerability?
That must mean that apple's Remote Desktop is a huge vulnerability. Giving the attacker complete control of the victims system, and the ability to execute remote code! Oh the horror! Oh the humanity!
No exploits necessary when the user download and willingly installs the application.
No, the funny part is that the users who torrented and installed pirated copies of iWork 09 and Photoshop CS4 got exactly what they deserved. Instant karma.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
It's a shame that the level of intelligence and knowledge of the posters to Slashdot seems to still be in decline.
I would think that anyone who wants to use this "revelation" as some kind of troll against OSX would at least be able to differentiate between a virus and a trojan.
There's a decent chance there will be some kind of unpatched OSX vuln that will be exploited ala what you see on a Windows machine, but until then you should just stew in silence and wait for your opportunity to post your "See OSX is no better than Windows" messages and then you wont look like such ignorant fools.
If you can install software on a computer, you can install software that is malware as well. I doubt anyone can fault Apple for allowing end users to install software that they choose to install.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein. "You make your choices and you take your chances," P.T. Barnum.
Except this isn't a Virus. It is a Trojan.
Any OS can be infected with a Trojan even Linux.
I find it anoying that under Linux most software really expects to be installed as root.
Maybe there needs to be a new level called app for applications but then you have to problem of libraries.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I suspect that this botnet has been created by a geek that is sick to death of uneducated Mac fanboyism, and in a small way, I have respect for that.
No, it wasn't. This botnet was created by a computer criminal who saw an opportunity to capitalize on people who install pirated software either because they are to clueless to know the risks or because they have deluded them selves into thinking it is riskless act. The lesson we can all learn from this is the following:
"If you download pirated software off the internet and install it on your computer you run the risk of installing along with it carefully crafted malware that your security software or whatever other precautions you are taking may not be able to protect you against."
Note that this basic lesson is true on all incarnations of Mac OS X, Windows, Linux or any other network enabled operating system you can download pirated software for.
Now please crawl back under your rock and learn to write better trolls...
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
While what you say it's true, taken in the context of Slashdot, it's a double standard. Whenever a trojan hits Windows, people are talking about how poorly designed Windows security is and how the user usually always runs as "administrator". People bring up how on Ubuntu and OS X, you have to sudo or login to do administrative things. Apparently that only works to a certain extend. I use and love my Macbook Pro but let's have some fairness here (not specifically you but Slashdot in general).
EvilCON - Made Famous by
I'm just guessing, but I think when he said "Technologically Uneducated Users" he was talking about Mac users, not developers. You might have missed the last 25 years where Macs claim to be more user friendly and cater to a less technologically inclined user-base, lending significant support to his suggestion. In short, not all Mac users fit that profile, but the ones that do are contributing to the negative image that OSX and Macs in general enjoy among a significant portion of the populace. Think "AOL", except replace the service itself with something worthwhile, and decrease the percentage of "Technologically Uninclined/Uneducated" users in the user-base from >99% down to about 80% or less.
More importantly, however, I think that he was implying that the users that claim that Macs are completely impervious to malware and that therefore Mac users need not take any precautions against infection are making the Mac community, and by extension the Mac OS, a laughing stock of the computer technology community. In short, the OS is technologically impressive in many ways, but a vocal portion of the users frequently make claims about it that are factually impossible and socially irresponsible. Not that this is exclusive to Mac, just better advertised and frequently sanctioned by the manufacturer.
Oh, was that my outside voice?
In my experience, it's less common for them to pass a virus in an actual software installer; instead, they slip it into the corresponding keygen. By the time someone has spent an hour installing Photoshop, they usually don't think twice about double-clicking a little keygen.
Wait, did I say that out loud?
Which is why most smart TPB users run the keygens in a virtual Windows instance they keep around just for the occasion. I know viruses, trojans and other malware has been a feature of the Warez scene almost since the beginning but I find it strange if it is true that actually integrating malware into installation packages is something botnet constructors rarely. By the time you have been so clever as to take all that trouble to set up a VM to run you keygen do you think twice about the malware being integrated into the Photoshop installer? I'm sure some security expert can explain why this is a dumb way to spread your malware but at first glance it seems like a pretty obvious way of spreading malware to me.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Unfortunately Macs are now IBM clones
Oooh, someone's getting sandy! On the way to the Apple Store for iAntiVirus, are we? :P
As for numbers at a conference, Apple users have already proved (in general, by their purchase) that they're willing to spend large amounts of cash to make themselves feel like they're different or special. I'd say that puts them high up the list of people who'd pay to go to a conference (rather than just staying at home, you know, actually coding).
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I don't know whether it is a double standard or what, but I believe that the difference is that once you have a Windows machine compromised at this point you may just as well reformat the entire thing.
Here users installed software that does something illicit, users were tricked into installing the software, but the trick was social, not technical.
This is not an Active X that became part of the OS because a user visited a cracked web-page. This is a user downloading and installing an application that does a bunch of unadvertised stuff.
Of-course IF the user is running with Admin privileges, then he also might as well reinstall the OS, at this point all bets are off. To me the difference is that user installed something himself, he was not under impression that there was no installation - there was an installation with full user participation.
You can't handle the truth.
That is very true, Free and Open Source from signed repositories is the safest way of getting software.
Besides, you must behave different if you are going to install some weird binary from the Internet (which is not the case with Windows or Mac). That will scare off the newbies and more advanced users will know of dangers anyway. So the impact from similar malware in Linux will be limited, not to mention various distributions, DE's and suchlike.
Until you see *UNIX widely deployed as a "desktop" OS, all claims that UNIX is inherently more secure than Windows are nothing but untested theories.
Dammit, I was going to utterly avoid these threads, but here goes anyhow.
Your statement is totally incorrect. Any OS may in fact be much safer than the others without being as widely distributed. It's not fair to claim that only xx,xxx PC's with xyxyxyxyx OS were infect this year as compared to xx,xxx,xxx,xxx with Windows. It is CERTAINLY valid to say that y% of PC's with xyxyxyxyx OS were infected compared to xx% with Windows.
Windows does make itself a bigger target by having a larger user base, and it's also likely a bigger target as many of the users of Windows are much less likely to know what to do to secure their OS compared to someone who chose to install a Unix based OS for example.
So either start using your head as was intended, to think and to use logic, or happily pop it back in the sand like a good ostrich.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Guys guys guys... you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the attack was social or security based. The fact is it is a Mac based botnet. That's it. No double standard here, just reporting that a Macintosh based botnet is up to no good. The bottom line is that security is up to the user. I could go %sudo ALL=NOPASSWD: ALL in my /etc/sudoers and security goes right out the window. It's all in control of the user. People are (as a collective) just not that smart. There can never be a secure system as long as there are users of the system.
Apple users have already proved (in general, by their purchase) that they're willing to spend large amounts of cash to make themselves feel like they're different or special.
The same could be applied to Windows users. In general, by their purchase, they've proven that they're willing to spend small amounts of cash to make themselves feel like they're different or better than Linux users.
Or Photoshop users. They've proven that they're willing to spend large amounts of cash to prove they're different or better than Gimp users.
Look, Gimp isn't Photoshop. I like Linux, and I like open source, and I use Gimp myself -- but I'm not a graphic designer, and Gimp is definitely missing large amounts of functionality that Photoshop has.
The same can be said about OS X vs Windows. Whether that functionality matters to you is a different matter -- like I said, I use Gimp -- but to pretend that Windows (or even Linux) is always just as good as OS X is just as ignorant as claiming that Gimp is always just as good as Photoshop.
I'd say that puts them high up the list of people who'd pay to go to a conference (rather than just staying at home, you know, actually coding).
I suspect that's why you're at home coding, rather than at work coding.
Communication is at least as important, even as necessary, as "actually coding", for anything beyond a one-man project.
Face-to-face meetings, and whiteboards, and projectors, can help to get a lot done in a short amount of time. While email and IM may be more efficient in some ways -- certainly it's cheaper than actually going to a conference -- I have definitely had the experience where I tried to communicate an idea back and forth with a developer via a board system (may as well have been email), and we just did not understand each other for several months. He flew out, and within one or two days, we were on the same page.
Before I had a real programming job, with a team of more than one, I had the same illusion you did, that this was all about code, and that a Mac is just a waste of money. I had some other assumptions, too -- that Windows was absolutely unworkable, that Javascript is a crappy language (and that HTML/CSS was a mess)...
Then I got into the real world.
HTML/CSS has a few messy implementations, but it's a fine technology in its own right. Javascript is an excellent language. And communication is as important as code -- indeed, I would cite communication skills above coding skills on my resume.
Now, frankly, you are just a troll, and probably not worth all that effort. But I see a bit of myself in you. Maybe you'll learn something today. Maybe someone else will.
If so, notice how that happened without any actual coding. Not counting <quote> tags, there isn't a line of code in this post.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Regardless of what operating system you're on, there's this little feature called code signing.
If Apple actually signed everything they make, including the Setup/Installer packages, and drummed just that one little piece of security into their users then this type of malware-embedded-in-Apple-software attack just wouldn't be possible.
But these people were downloading a cracked version of the software (just not entirely in the way they expected). So they would expect that this would fail a validity test.
Obviously code signing would help in the user expected that whatever they were installing was totally genuine.
Ever stop to think
There is no patch for human stupidity. Just goes to show that if you do illegal file sharing you need good antivirus regardless of platform.
I think that "IBM clone" pretty much a meaningless term, these days, don't you? Especially since Macs have switched from PowerPC (actually made by IBM, as I'm sure you know) to Intel (whose chips no longer bear much resemblance to the IBM chips of the past). Hell, Macs don't even use BIOS's anymore. Hell, IBM doesn't even make desktop pc's anymore. Anyway, sorry, this is way too persnickety, but these mac/pc/secure/insecure flamewars get my hackles up.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.