Slashdot Mirror
Backdoor Trojan For Windows Ported To Mac OS
An anonymous reader writes "A Remote Access Trojan (RAT) for Windows, known as darkComet, has been ported to Mac OS X. The new backdoor Trojan is not yet finished, but it could be indicative of more underground programmers attempting to take advantage of Apple's growing market share."
darkComet (aka darkComet-RAT) is the name of a remote administration tool, which BlackHoleRAT's control functionality is derived from. The trojan is actually called BlackHoleRAT, but regardless, here's an article link.
And, while I'm going, the distortion of the term "trojan" is starting to test my patience. A trojan horse is a piece of software that is deceptive in nature, one which appears to perform a desirable function, but, in fact, steals information or harms the system its occupying. This application, darkComet-RAT, is referred to as a trojan itself all over the web in news articles relating to this beta of "BlackHoleRAT," which is NOT the case. darkComet-RAT is a legit remote administration tool, similiar in functionality to VNC, and should be treated as such.
I understand this butchering of the acronym "RAT," between its use as "Remote Administration Tool" and "Remote Access Trojan" may be confusing, as with all acronyms that use the same letters, but please, for the love of god, do some damn fact checking, and this would be less likely to happen.
Grumble grumble grumble.
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
Normally, I'd read The Fine Article just to get a hint of what this story means, but there isn't any links and the summary is vapid and useless. It is a non-story. Allow me to distill its meaning: "A piece of malware (a remote access backdoor ill-defined thingy that probably isn't a trojan) for windows was ported to mac. This is probably bad. Considering Apple's 'growing market share', what could it mean?"
Bravo slashdot. A new low.
You should turn signatures off.
Hmm, you spout off on some stupid controversial opinion without even checking if it has anything to do with the topic on hand, yes you are a troll.
Though part of the fault is that whoever made this summary is also a troll, DarkComet is a Remote Administration Tool (Emphasis on TOOL) similar to VNC, SSH, etc. There is nothing about this that is Virus or Trojan related.
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
MacOS X actually comes bundled with a tool that is able to wipe the entire hard disk! Up till now this has not caused widespread mayhem yet, but considering Apple's growing market share...
The medical model for disease works for computer viruses too. You need both a vulnerability and a vector. The number of potential hosts increases the attractiveness of the host for a virus (whether through natural evolution or malice aforethought.) The number of hosts also increases the vector span. But there still has to be a vulnerability!
Similarly, we need for the countermeasures to be demonstrated as both "safe and effective." My personal experience with Mac OS 9 and earlier anti-virus applications is that they were not very "safe", they caused a lot of problems. For OS X, I'm waiting for some reasonable demonstration of "effective" based on real-world threats. Predictions of doom from anti-virus vendors (who most certainly have a vested financial interest) that are not substantiated with real-world experiences are not persuasive to me.
By the way, what is the measured track record for successful penetrations observed by third parties, i.e. "in the real world", for both Win 7 and Mac OS? The argument that "Mac OS claims to be secure ... [by] not targeted as much" rings hollow to me. You'd think if vulnerabilities exist in a platform that is growing by leaps and bounds at the -high end- of the market would have garnered some successful penetrations, if nothing else than for the "glory of hacking the supposedly secure platform."
dave
There may well be large gaping holes in Mac security. The question is: why is no one exploiting them? I don't mean winning a competition, but maliciously or criminally using them.
At what percentage of market share does it become viable to start writing malware? 25%? 50%? 75%?
Regardless of percentage, there are reckoned to be c. 94 million OS X users. Is that still not enough? As we all know, Mac users are computer illiterates with far more money than sense. Surely this sector would seem ideal for targeting by malware writers?
Assuming the reason for the lack of malware is NOT the inherent robustness of the OS; and it's NOT the market share: then what IS it?