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.'"

37 of 757 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Sigh by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Hey, what a surprise by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hey, what a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but a trojan doesn't qualify as a "security issue" on the part of the OS. If a trojan succeeds in compromising the system, it's the fault of the user, not the OS.

    2. Re:Hey, what a surprise by Burdell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, like all linux distros, in order to do any real damage on a mac, you need to enter an admin password

      Please stop repeating this fallacy! First, on a single-user system (e.g. the vast majority of home computers), the end user has rights to all the interesting data files (songs, pictures, documents, etc.), so anything running as the user can do significant local damage. Sure, the OS and apps may be protected, but that isn't really what the end user cares about (since that's all easily replaced). However, since the goal of most viruses/worms/trojans is to control the computer for distributed and untraceable nefarious purposes (and not have the owner notice), they don't do that anymore. They cause the computer to join botnets, connect to master control servers, and wait for instructions. Sending spam, scanning other systems for vulnerabilities, hosting fast-flux phishing sites, etc. don't require elevated privilege.

  3. Re:FUD by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  4. I've got your denial right here. by earnest+murderer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:I've got your denial right here. by SpitfireSMS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They didnt purposefully install the malicious software
      That would be like saying IE is safe, and its the users fault for purposefully clicking the "Install ActiveX" button that happened to install malware.

      If the operating system was as safe as the crazy fanboys claim, it wouldnt have been able to install malware in the first place.

      Not that im claiming that *any* OS is safer than any other, im justing saying OSX did NOT protect the user.

    2. Re:I've got your denial right here. by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i have a mac and i think this is embarassing denialism...... people did not purposefully install malware. No one says, "I know! I'll install some malware to make my computer a zombie." They installed a downloaded copy of an application and it had malware hidden in it. That malware was able to run on their computer without their knowledge. This is not a very different vector from most windows malware. Telchine is right; macs are not invulnerable, they are less vulnerable than windows.

    3. Re:I've got your denial right here. by xav_jones · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent up. No OS can protect you from deliberately installing malware. Getting your software from an untrusted source and then giving that software install and admin rights on your machine is not a sign of a defective OS. Just a defective user.

    4. Re:I've got your denial right here. by earnest+murderer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They totally intentionally installed the software. You can't make a machine Malware proof without also making it software proof.

      The whole notion of "Malicious Software" is a marketing creation for the sole purpose of making money off people who would rather spend money on software to watch their back than learn (bother) to help themselves.

      Anyone who tells you different is confusing the issue. OS X has plenty of problems, this isn't one of them.

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    5. Re:I've got your denial right here. by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So wait, let me get this straight ... You think that if a user installs an ActiveX, and clicks through the three or four warnings and clicks it takes to get it installed, that the OS is the problem? Please tell me thats not the case, cause if it is, you are an idiot.

      The are only two choices here:
      1) Let people install software from wherever they want, just like most OSes do it.

      2) Only let users install apps approved by the OS vendor, like the iPhone.

      So in case 1, the OS is the problem because the user did something stupid even after several warnings.

      And in 2, the vender is a complete and total prick who you hate because you can't install any random shitty app that creates the situation in #1.

      You know, either way, you're still an idiot.

      What OS do you know of that the user can't install malware in? Linux? Nope, can install malware there too.

      Get a clue.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  5. Re:May I be the first to laugh by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:May I be the first to laugh by MadUndergrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry, how does conficker spread again?

  7. Instant Karma... by shmlco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Instant Karma... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "They" got what they deserved? More like we, the internet public at large that has to suffer through botnet DoS attacks, got what we didn't deserve.

    2. Re:Instant Karma... by wumingzi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone who says Macs are virus-proof doesn't have a clue as to what they're talking about.

      Macs ARE harder to inject viruses into because the limited privilege escalation system used by Macs (and Linux) reduces the opportunities to run processes as root.

      On pre-Vista Windows boxes, most people ran their default account with godlike administrator privileges. It's either that or:

      Run a restricted account
      Any time you want to install software
      DO:
          log out of your restricted account
          log into the admin account
          install the software
          then go back to your restricted account.
      REPEAT

      After doing this about 5 or six times, you get frustrated and switch the "Administrator" flag on your restricted account and thus leave yourself open to attack any time you download something (or navigate to a malware page if you're running IE).

      The vector for infection for this botnet was escalating privileges to install CS 3. It only happens once, and only happens briefly, but once is all you need!

    3. Re:Instant Karma... by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This ain't a virus. This is a program, just like any other that you download and run.

      Not to say that Macs are "virus-proof" - they aren't. But short of downloading pirated software and running it, there haven't been any attacks so your friends here on Slashdot are still giving you good advice.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Instant Karma... by Thantik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You make a good point except for the fact that if I just hide malware in the installation file, neither of your tactics are secure. The user is the weakest link in most attacks.

    5. Re:Instant Karma... by obeythefist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's the same story for most Windows malware.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    6. Re:Instant Karma... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod this up. The strongest attack vector is the social engineering vector.

    7. Re:Instant Karma... by Thaelon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except they probably don't even realize it.

      And everyone else gets to suffer for it.

      --

      Question everything

    8. Re:Instant Karma... by arogier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would seem the user is especially disadvantaged if they operate under the believe they have a malware proof machine. Why operate and antivirus or download with some discretion if you have a malware proof win machine?

    9. Re:Instant Karma... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You make a good point except for the fact that if I just hide malware in the installation file, neither of your tactics are secure. The user is the weakest link in most attacks.

      The users is a weak link in many security chains, but a hard one to exploit on a large scale. OS X and Linux do better on security partly because of market share, but largely because most malware is spread by automated worms and the fewer and more hardened services running by default on OS X and Linux machines provide a much harder target.

      For trojans such as we're discussing, no OS has a good solution in place, excepting maybe SELinux or the like which is fairly limited and hard to use because it really isn't in high demand so developers don't target it.

    10. Re:Instant Karma... by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I thought Macs were supposed to be virus-proof?

      It's not a virus, it's a trojan, and no computer is stupid-user-proof.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    11. Re:Instant Karma... by bipbop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Macs ARE harder to inject viruses into because the limited privilege escalation system used by Macs (and Linux) reduces the opportunities to run processes as root.

      You have a point, but most malware doesn't need to run as root to do its job, so really getting access at all is "game over". Protecting root doesn't mean much when root isn't the target . . .

    12. Re:Instant Karma... by atraintocry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Certainly for a lot of it, but I wouldn't say most. Just from my own experience cleaning up people's PCs, a lot of it is IE-targeting drive-by malware. Obviously the number of Mac trojans like this one in the wild is much smaller than the number of similar Windows ones. That's a practical difference, not any kind of baked-in protection. You can call it security by obscurity if you want. But that situation isn't going to change for a long time, if ever.

      As to whether MacOS is *theoretically* safer than Vista with UAC turned on and Firefox as default browser, I don't know. Probably not. I do enjoy not having to put up with two or three dialogs and a screen dimming every time I delete a shortcut from the start menu. If you can handle running an XP box and keeping it clean, there's your Windows solution. For people who can't be trusted to do so, as well as people who can't stand constantly being interrupted when doing mundane things like enabling Wi-Fi, there's OS X.

    13. Re:Instant Karma... by dakameleon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... and no-one said Macs were trojan-proof, nor even virus-proof - just that there's a lot less attack vectors than Windows, and a lot less attackers.

      Any system is going to be vulnerable to maliciously crafted & targeted code that is willingly (if unwittingly) run by the user.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    14. Re:Instant Karma... by steve_bryan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you know what OS the creator of that attack uses himself? He runs OSX on a MacBook Pro. It puts a rather interesting spin on the conclusion you want to draw.

  8. Quality of posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Linux. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. ...uneducated Mac fanboyism... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  11. Re:Sigh by Comatose51 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 /.
  12. Re:Sigh by Ifni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  13. Re:It should be noted by Erikderzweite · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Botnet is a botnet by Randall311 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Social Engineering by MacColossus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:Sigh by m.ducharme · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.