Slashdot Mirror
Apple Quietly Goes After Mac Trojan With Update
Th'Inquisitor was one of several readers to point out coverage of Apple's stealth security fix, included along with the recent Snow Leopard 10.6.4 update. Graham Cluley of Sophos first noticed the update to protect Mac computers from a Trojan, and the fact that Apple didn't mention it in the release notes. The malware opens a back door to a Mac that can allow attackers to gain control of the machine and snoop about on it or turn it into a zombie. "You have to wonder," writes Cluley, "whether their keeping quiet about an anti-malware security update like this was for marketing reasons." While he certainly has a point that Apple benefits by its users' belief that the platform is secure, you also have to wonder whether any such publicity from a security company has a marketing subtext, as well.
Why is the information publicly available? Why would most generic Mac users care to seek it on their own? Should Apple shove it in their face?
I would hardly call release notes for a bugfix "shoving it in their face."
It makes a lot of sense to say what you fixed in a bugfix, so people clearly know if a system needs a bugfix, or is safe.
Hiding it makes a lot of sense if you don't want to look bad, but is unhelpful to users who want to know if they need to update their systems or if it can wait.
This is probably more of an issue for enterprise users, and in that case their are fewer macs for sure, but its a good practice to be honest about what you're fixing, and covering that up is dishonest.
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
I know.. this is Bill Gates and Linus Trovalds secret plot to make Apple look bad. Theres no such thing as mac malware, Steve Jobs would never allow it. He has out best interests at heart.. right.. RIGHT?!?!
Anyways even if there was mac malware, They would be forthcoming, and quit claiming to be malware free... I mean they would never lie or mislead us right.. RIGHT!?!?
Disclaimer to the mac fanbois, if you cant take a joke, don't bother replying.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
trojan != virus
Sometimes a trojan prevents a virus.
Let's face it, most of us are scoffers. But moments before zero hour, it does not pay to take chances.
many people go their whole lives without visiting tech sites
They don't? What an unintresting life they must lead with their travels and friends and social life. Repulsive.
Apparently the mods cannot read either.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
I think you don't know what a trojan is. A trojan is a simple program that pretends to be something that it isn't. Any OS is vulnerable to such program because OSes are designed to, guess what, run programs, no OS is that smart to identify if a program is not doing what is claiming to do. (not getting into details, there are way to limit the damage and heuristics, but the main idea is that a trojan is a program that the user is running because he/she doesn't know any better).
Actually the big part of the problem is running programs from random sites on the internet, Linux for example has the advantage that most of the programs come from well vetted sources not from random sites that can be also be subject to phishing.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
This is a good opportunity for the world to rethink its perception of what viruses, trojans and the like are. Due to the vast and never ending list of problems and software defects that plague the dominating platform (i.e., microsoft windows) since it's inception and continue to affect it up to this day, the world has been conditioned to think that having a base system with so many profoundly serious defects is somehow acceptable. I mean, these bugs are so serious that they even let other people take over your system, a system that you've paid with your hard-earned money to be able to use as you use fit. Why exactly should this be normal, let alone acceptable?
In this instance we have a very rare glimpse of what the issue of software vulnerabilities is and how it should be handled. A very serious software bug could be exploited by malicious people to be able to gain control of the system and that problem was fixed by fixing the software bug. That is exactly how it should be. Yet, what Microsoft forced us to believe it is the right way of handling this thing is let that security hole stay wide open. What Microsoft forced the world to believe is that you solve the problems arising from any security bug by paying some third-party vendor for a piece of software that monitors your system for a hand full of instances of malicious code that made it's way into your system through those security holes. And this has become acceptable why? It's as you've bought a house with so many holes that could be used by malicious people to enter your house as they see fit and take over it. The problem lies in those holes being there and the problem doesn't go away if you employ security guards instead of plugging those damn holes your incompetent builder left there.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
So how does Mac "detects" it ?
Does Mac have a built-in anti-virus or do they rely on something simpler like checksums or something like that ?
Anyway, as said in TFA, I guess all MAC users should install anti-virus software. I use clam on Linux although I run no daemon process. I only scan emails or other very suspicious downloaded files and I run a full scan every week during the night. I also rely on common sense and digital signature when I download/install software.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Hiding it makes a lot of sense if you don't want to look bad,
It's really hard for me to believe that's the reason they did it, given the number of ugly things they did announce, including a few bugs that give complete control of the computer just by opening a web page. They could have added a line about updating malware signatures, and if they worded it right, avoided the bad press (I mean, it's not like it's the first time there has been a trojan for OSX).
It is more likely that the internal communication processes at Apple got mixed up, and the people in charge of updating the malware signatures haven't gotten in contact with the people in charge of writing the release notes. I don't think that is an uncommon thing in large (and even small) companies.
Qxe4
There's been malware out for mac for well over a year. The big one I run into is a self-decoding shell script that installs a root cronjob to redirect your dns servers. The machines get brought into me because their web browsing has gotten slower, due to the malware dns server the machine is now using being a lot slower than their ISP's.
I've actually ran into ONE example of a mac that was back-door'd, but thought it was an isolated targeted attack. (the victim was "high profile") But maybe it was just an early version of what's discussed in this thread.
BUT, tossing my hat into the ring as to whether or not Apple should be "hiding" the fix... check out the latest security update from Apple. HUGE list of security patches. (over 40?) All with accreditation to the people that brought the issues to Apple. It's not like they don't have issues, and it's not like they systematically hide them. They just tend to fix them very quickly, and have very few (relatively speaking) to fix in the first place. Apple is well-known to include security updates and fixes in their OS updates, they don't all land in security updates. That's all this one was. It's very likely there were a dozen other security-related fixes made in the 10.6.4 update. This one they just happened to notice. Apple just doesn't usually put a security-fix accreditation readme in with their OS updates. Is that the real issue here I wonder?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Part of writing serious malware, the sort that uses shellcodes and relies upon particular calling conventions and memory layouts, is very platform-specific. That kind of thing has to be learned anew for every platform one wants to target, often including different architectures of a given OS.
Trojans, on the other hand, are literally nothing other than programs that the user doesn't realize he is installing. They may attempt to hide themselves using platform-specific tricks, but at the end of the day, it's a program written like any other. OS X may emphasize Objective-C and de-emphasize its UNIX underpinnings for many things, but at the end of the day it uses a POSIX API very similar to the one found in Linux.
Hell, I've written software for the POSIX subsystem of NT on x86, and successfully ported it to Linux on ARM, with fewer than one #ifdef per KLOC. I strongly suspect that OS X is a lot closer to Linux than SUA (Microsoft's NT Subsystem for UNIX Applications) is to Linux, yet it wasn't hard at all. It wasn't malware, but if I'd wanted to I could have invisibly slipped it into an installer for some other program and then it would have been a trojan.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Trojans for Macs are really no different than any other OS. It just takes a bit of social engineering or something like that, because a trojan, unlike a virus, requires the user to install it. When you install something on a Mac (and windows depending on your settings) you need to type in a password and specifically give permissions to do so. Mac trojans and assorted malware have been around for awhile. What I'm not aware of are any successful Mac OS viruses in the wild, i.e. a "drive-by" infection: getting infected simply by opening an e-mail or a web page.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Trojans aren't viruses.
Please list off all the viruses that will run on Snow Leopard.
Mac users are very fond of pointing out this distinction, leaving out that trojans and malware, and social engineering, these days are the overwhelming majority of Windows issues as well. The traditional virus is mostly a thing of the past.
Actually funny you should say that, as I would say that most Windows users would be safer as they know there is malware for Windows and thus are more likely to have AV and Antimal. I had to clean up a few Macs infected with the "Mac Codec" DNSChanger awhile back, and I literally had to take them to a security site and show them a security report saying "This is Mac malware" because they completely refused to believe it was possible for a Mac to get malware, because that was what they had been told so often. One even got irate with me because "WTF is the point of spending all this money buying a Mac and a bunch of new stuff to go with it if I can still get infected!!!". I told him to go take it up with the guys at the Genius Bar, because I just fix boxes.
So I would say, especially with Windows 7 where there are features like ASLR, NX bit, and Windows Defender by default, that Windows users are probably safer because they know of the dangers out there. Many Mac users think they can run whatever they want and do anything because "Macs can't get bugs" and are therefor less likely to have good safety practices like have an AV or worry about updates. BTW all the guys that hope for a "Year of the Linux Desktop"? Guess what inevitably comes with clueless users? Can you say malware and headaches boys and girls? Believe me, I tried converting a "must click on teh pron!" Windows user to Linux once, he managed to break the OS in just three days. No matter the OS, stupid is as stupid does.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Ahem...
Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
> I think you don't know what a trojan is....
I think you do not know who you are talking to ;-)
More seriously, I agree with what you say although. The best way that I know of to protect against trojans is to verify digital signature as I posted here:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1691914&cid=32627744
Then again, the line is slim between installing a trojan because you think it is iPhoto and installing a program because you are misguided into clicking onto something while browsing the web.
In modern times, the distinction between trojan, virus and spywarre and what not is harder to make. The iPhoto trojan is basically a rootkit. It doesn't matter if you get that rootkit installed by making the user believing he is installing iPhoto or by exploiting something else in the OS, you still end up with a rootkit installed on a remote machine.
As a matter of fact, the hackers will probably find another way to install their rootkit if they haven't already found one. Security is a global topic, punctually plugins holes isn't the way to go although it is required sometimes. Punctually plugging holes is part of a good security policy but it is no policy in itself.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Every pedant in this thread likes to say that trojans are technically different than viruses.
The kind of person who would buy a mac because they "don't get viruses" would be very pissed after stumbling upon this article and especially this condescending, duplicitous thread.
People from the Windows world know this - the average user dosen't give a shit about the differences between viruses and trojans. If it makes their AV software blink red, it's bad.
I use apple's software update server to distribute patches and updates at my company. I never understood why apple gives us a mechanism to centrally control and distribute patches, but no way to automatically install them.
This is one thing that Microsoft got right. Centrally distributing and installing patches is stupidly easy in the windows world. It pains me to say this, but the lack of automatic patching will bite apple and their users one day.
While we are nitpicking, the Trojans are the good guys. You have to be on the lookout for the sneaky Greeks.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts! And in all seriousness, using the proper term might cause a few more users to think twice about clicking "Ok" and instead thinking about ancient stories and their modern parallels.
So you like it when the OS vendor pushes some software onto your system without any mention in the patch notes (which is the point of the article)? If so, you're posting on the wrong website.
The kind of user that buys a Mac probably doesn't care about "details".
A virus is called a virus for a reason. It's called a virus because it
shares an important characteristic with biological organisms.
It can replicate itself.
A Trojan is just a stupid program that doesn't do what it says.
Similarly, a Trojan is called that for a reason. You have to go outside
the city walls and drag it back inside your perimeter before it does you
any damage.
Yes, these little "details" like words and terms that have actual specific meaning are important.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...except Windows is automated to the point that "trojans" become viruses.
That is the whole problem that Windows has created and magnified. They
have taken situations that previously didn't have any risk of viral
infection and added automatic execution of random untrusted programs.
It's like having walls that pull through any Athenians or Spartans that happen to standing outside.
Suddenly, the Trojans are wondering WTF is Achilles doing in the middle of the Palace.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Yes, it's like coppery.
OSX is based on UNIX (and is a certified UNIX OS) Linux is Not UNIX and although compatible is quite different to OSX
Slightly OT, but amusing:
Linux Is Not UniX ia a (near-perfect) recursive acronym.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
If you're just starting to wonder now then you're gonna be in for a shock. Apple has never been a really transparent company about what they do, and they've always just pushed and bundled things however they like.
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
Sir, you're never going to get modded up here if you continue to insist on posting clear, intelligent and rational comments that actually discuss the issues involved, backed up by your personal knowledge and experience.
I also lack time to discuss every time I cannot come up with good arguments for my position :)
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
But does he weigh as much as a duck?!?!
Wearing condoms won't protect you against water-related diseases.
That depends on where you wear the condom.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
A virus attaches it's code to programs and spreads itself to others when you run an infected execuable on a system. Viruses are pretty much old school and are easy to detect because they modify the code of executables. They also can't infect programs outside of the priviledge level of the infected software and also cannot do a lot of crazy things outside of the user's access level. They are pretty much old school and are not very profitable, just destructive or annoying.
Malware spreads through an exploit vector or social engineering. It installs software and drivers to the system which it attempts to hide through various tricks and obscure OS functionality. Malware can often have a rootkit driver which make them invisible or impossible to remove when booted normally. Malware is designed to make a profit too (like making your machine send spam, logging passwords or other info, popping up ads...).
The reason for the two different levels of software is because malware initially was difficult for vendors to define. Some software for example, presents it's negative aspects in the EULA and it's assumed to be valid software if you install it. Who's to say that WGA isn't spyware or any software that reports activities back to a central server? Malware is also hard to detect heuristically and antimalware apps instead rely on lists of file/registry locations and hashes.
But the two AV programs shouldn't be an issue because they do their blocking and checking at different points. Antivirus needs filter drivers so it can scan files for attached virus code or activity. Antimalware just needs to periodically scan a set of locations and ensure no malware is there. But yeah, most of them can be integrated pretty easily and it makes sense.
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
Classic case of PR over practicality.
We don't need as many lifeboats because the ship can't possibly sink. Just put em on to keep the officials happy.
And as the ship is unsinkable, no lifeboat drills.
Oh.. and a few lower grade rivets will be fine, cos' the ship is unsinkable remember... No harm saving a few quid eh?
Of course, a PR driven product couldn't exist like that today, because so many technical people would point out the flaws, and the company wouldn't get away with it. Right?
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Hiding it makes a lot of sense if you don't want to look bad, but is unhelpful to users who want to know if they need to update their systems or if it can wait.
I think you run too much windos. The only reason I've ever hesitated installing an OS X update right away was when it required a restart and I had something running I didn't want to interrupt. I've never seen an update break anything. I shake my head when I hear the windos admins at the company test a bugfix update. Why'd the need to do that? Isn't that what the vendor is supposed to do before sending it out?
I think you run too much Mac.
Vendors are supposed to test their updates before sending it out, but who knows if their tests were comprehensive? The best way to see if an update will work with your specific combination of hardware and software is to test it on your hardware and software. Are you using a custom app written in-house? Did your programmer rely on an outdated program interface that finally got phased out in this update? The vendor may have given plenty of warning that they were going to phase out that interface, but your programmer may have missed that, or been an idiot. In that case, the vendor *DID* test and considered it functional, but it could still break stuff.
Or the vendor thought they tested it, but screwed that up. Are you willing to trust them to always get it right 100% of the time?
Your cuddly image of Mac computers always working is great, but *NO* system is infallible, and if you have 1000 computers and you can't afford to have them all stop working on you, you have to test *EVERY* upgrade. That's just common sense.
-Taylor
Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
Not looking for trouble, but really what was the last virus to hit the windows world? Trojans yes by the bucketload that then download all sorts of malware, but since XP SP2 wnet mainstream viruses as such seem dead. OK a piece of social engineering like the "I love you" will still get people but users are users. All you can do is make them non admins but crudware can still destroy their data and I don't see how other OS's can stop that, the machine might be OK but that user's data is toast and that's generally where most people value things. "The machine is fine, the only thing I couldn't recover is that special photo of your dead Gran" is not what folks want to hear.
He's not saying that Macs are immune, he's saying that Windows had some bad design concepts at one point. Microsoft went through a phase where they integrated things like scripting and COM into everything they could, but there was very little consideration for security. It wasn't until worms and malware started rampaging across Windows machines that they actually started considering and working on security.
Take Outlook for example. E-mail was normally safe because it's was only text and images. Then add VBA scripting capabilities and embedded ActiveX controls to the mix...suddenly there are huge vectors for hostile software to use in plain old e-mail messages. Internet Explorer would ask if you wanted to install an ActiveX control, if you said yes it would have full access to your system to do whatever it wanted. NT based systems ran will a full compliment of services exposed to the internet and ready to use.
No one considered that people on the internet might be assholes and take advantage of those handy features for completely hostile purposes. Even if they did Microsoft had no clue where to begin and would take years of hard lessons to get Windows into a decently secure state.
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
Golly, other companies have done this before so it must be ok for apple to do it too, and anyone that criticises them must just be a hater. tee hee hee
You're a tool.
Allow your old PC repair pal Hairyfeet to help you out there bud. What you want is a combination approach, using Comodo AV and Comodo Time Machine. Comodo AV, with full firewall, only uses around 19Mb of RAM and less than 1% CPU when not running a scheduled scan, and Comodo Time Machine allows you to "go back" and remove any malware she is clueless enough to ignore the warnings and install anyway. I have customers and relatives that can fill a PC with more viruses than a Bangkok Whore, and Comodo has kept them squeaky clean.
One word of warning though: Comodo Time machine will NOT work on a dual boot that includes Windows 7 in any location but the C: drive, due to the fact that Win7 changes everything to C: even if you install it in another location like D:. It won't screw anything up if you try it, it just won't work. But for a single boot, a dual boot with a non Win7 OS, or a dual boot with Win7 on the C: drive, Comodo AV + time machine is a life saver! Believe me, I know where you are coming from, my GF lives 126 miles away and having to repair her PC when she screwed it up was a pain. Thanks to Comodo time machine when she screws something up bad I can walk her through having her OS back to normal in under 15 minutes. And Comodo AV keeps the bugs away, as I had her bring it down just a couple of weeks ago to give it a checkup and all was good.
Both are 100% free, work on X86 and X64, and Comodo AV even has a sandbox built in that will automatically run installers and new apps in the sandbox if you desire, and you can have it run any app at any time sandboxed. You can even tell it to run her FF sandboxed and she'll never know the difference. Trust me, Hairyfeet is good, Hairyfeet is wise ;-)
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Whatever the current version of iPhoto is comes with your Mac. To upgrade you have to buy the latest version of iLife.
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
You obviously haven't used many Macs for a long period of time - I can recall numerous events where java updates broke things with a simple scorch game on OS X - to the point I had to put stupid warnings on the site. I can recall when my network uPnP was borked by a security update from Apple, I can recall the numerous daemons being broken in various OS X server updates too.
My anecdotal 'evidence' is based on years of experience over a wide variety and vast amount of Macs.
Because making sure things don't break is obviously stupid of IT.
The vendor didn't test the fix in your environment, they tested it in theirs.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
On one hand, Apple could have very well done the same with other parts of the software, providing fix without disclosure. This goes on to say that vulnerability disclosure is a very poor indicator of software quality. However, in this case, it could have said something as trivial as "updated malware signature database." It's not fixing a vulnerability.
On the other hand, this article highlights the very interesting fact that there *is* a market for anti-virus software, even when the base OS is robust and secure. The base OS could be immune to virus and malware attack when there is no user action involved. However, the user could become the weak link to compromise their own system. Anti-virus software prevents high-risk users from being affected by their reckless action.
It's just like how only certain people need to be HIV tested regularly. You only need to worry about HIV infection if you received blood transfusion, or if you engaged in promiscuous sexual act (willfully or as a rape victim). If you did neither, then you don't need to be tested, hence you don't need to spend money on the pharmaceutical products for the HIV test. You should definitely be tested regularly if you know what you do carries a high risk of contracting HIV.
You may still need anti-virus software, depending on if what you do online carries a high risk of contracting malware. It has less to do with whether your operating system is secure.
I once had a signature.
You might even say backronym
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
That if any Apple user would have heard anything about it, they would have preferred to keep the Trojan installed, so they could use it to sneak out of the walled garden once in a while. ;) ;)
Also, fanbois wouldn’t be able to parrot how their system has no known viruses at all. And we all know that Apple relies nearly completely on...ehrm... viral marketing.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The malware blacklist has existed since Mac OS v10.6.0, and has always had 2 Trojans on it. Now Apple added a 3rd because there is a new one. That's how it's supposed to work. If this is news, it says really good things about Apple because it's man bites dog. New malware on Windows is dog bites man.
The Mac is not invulnerable to malware. No system is. That would be like saying a building is invulnerable to graffiti. However, if you paint over graffiti the instant it appears, you remove the entire incentive. Apple's Software Update patches 75% of the community within a week or so, and the rest within a month or so. There's just not much to be gained with Mac malware. Whatever you exploit will be replaced almost immediately by Apple. Snow Leopard is not one version of an OS, it's 10 discrete versions. There were 11 versions of Leopard. Each lasts only 2-3 months. A typical Windows version lasts 2-3 years or more. It's a very different situation.
Another thing to understand is that Sophos and other companies who make their living solely because Windows is mismanaged always want to expand into the Mac market and so they like to pretend that it's not a question of platform management but rather that malware is a fact of life and their services and scanners are necessary. No. The 10-20 built-in security systems of Mac OS are superior to anything you can bolt on to Windows.
Well, I've run into several covert Apple "pushes" in the (thankfully) short period of time I've had to deal with their cobbled system. I seem to recall two stealth pushes of Java in particular which broke the platform we were using: anyone watching upstream would see security issues being discovered (and fixed), but Apple made no such disclosure and just installed them. That's really nice on a server. (Microsoft, you're an ass for doing same with 'new' packages like the latest version of IE, even when SUS has things set to require authentication prior to install.)
Note: OS X itself isn't bad, from a design perspective. Neither are the BSDs. It's the user utility/ability in being able to control the platform once you've got it (without painful regressions, downtime, etc.).
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I've never seen an update break anything.
iTunes 2.0 erased partitions due to a nasty directory expansion bug. I wasn't bit by this, but I would have been if I downloaded the update right away. Since then, I've been happy to wait 2 weeks for folks like you to be my guinea pig. Please keep posting your reaction to updates, I need to know if it's safe for me to dl! kthxbai.
--
$tar -xvf
Bad example. Many people know in their hearts that there _is_ a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
This isn't iPhoto, it's malware disguised as iPhoto; if it were disguised as office2008.dmg would you call it a hole in Microsoft's software? In fact, it's not _any_ kind of security hole. It's practically impossible to prospectively guard against trojans because they're software installed by the user that claims to do one thing but actually does something else. The only real way to do that comprehensively is a closed app-store model, which is the main thing Apple are bashed for on Slashdot.
Apple Menu -> System Preferences -> Software Updates -> Uncheck "check for updates" box. BTW, Software Updates are _never_ pushed on OSX, there isn't even an auto install option, unlike Windows.
Yes, I begin to understand. Mostly, I understand that:
* the driver mess on windos can cause your system to fail if you upgrade it, because... well, because the library management system is so stupid, there are no proper words to describe it
* Microsoft is at the same time totally lost and bound in their needs for backwards compatability and can't move forward because of it, and then on the other hand breaks it with minor updates
* even if you don't touch the drivers, different hardware can mean your non-driver update breaks. In other words: The hardware abstraction layer doesn't really abstract the hardware
Yes, I agree installing the update on one machine first, checking if it works, and then installing it everywhere is the right thing to do. That wasn't what I'm talking about. I was talking about week-long testing cycles for a minor OS update. Really, if you have to do that, you should ask yourself if you're using the right OS.
To use a car analogy: If every time you fill up you get this urge to run a full maintainance cycle, just to make sure nothing broke, something is wrong with either your head or your car.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org