OS X Crimeware Kit Emerges

Trailrunner7 writes "Crimeware kits have become a ubiquitous part of the malware scene in the last few years, but they have mainly been confined to the Windows platform. Now, reports are surfacing that the first such kit targeting Apple's Mac OS X operating system has appeared. The kit is being compared to the Zeus kit, which has been one of the more popular and pervasive crimeware kits for several years now. A report by CSIS, a Danish security firm, said that the OS X kit uses a template that's quite similar to the Zeus construction and has the ability to steal forms from Firefox." Mac users are also being targeted by a new piece of scareware called MAC Defender.

Comments

Masses reaction

[TaoPhoenix]

"It can't be! Macs don't get malware! Protect us, Steve J!"

Re:Masses reaction

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Not to worry, my faithful, mandatory binary signing will be here soon enough.

Sent from my iPad.

Re:Masses reaction

[jo_ham]

Not wanting to go for a cheap "FTFY", I'll just say that the reaction of everyone imitating a Mac user's reaction will be yours.

The rest of us actual Mac users carry on as normal, just like the Linux users.

Interestingly, does this count as the 44th malware threat on OS X (based on a cited post from the AV thread yesterday that said there are 43 threats over the life of OS X), or does it count as more than one, since it's a tool kit. Is a swiss army knife one tool or several? :p

Re:Masses reaction

[bmo]

Nobody with a brain has ever claimed that OSX is impervious. And nobody with a brain has ever claimed that OSX is impervious to PEBCAK.

What *has* been claimed is that the automatic propagation of evil over OSX (and BSD and Linux and *every other sane OS out there*) is terribly inefficient, because unless you pack the evil in a container, permissions (including the permission to execute) are stripped as soon as you send your file. And then you have to either unpack it or you have to manually assign the execute bit through right clicking and using the dialog or using chmod. And only then can you run the file.

Compare and contrast this to the Windows world where the execute bit is tied to 3 letters in the file name and Windows will duly execute the file as soon as it's double-clicked. Malware in this system goes from machine to machine because Windows assumes that a file is permitted to execute if it whispers the correct shibboleth of "exe, com, scr" or what have you.

While OSX's advantage of using the Unix model of tossing permissions does not cover warez, the equivalent of purple gorillas on OSX or braindead users, even the small amounts of protection that OSX gives goes a long way in preventing network effects on the spread of malware.

--
BMO

Re:Masses reaction

[melikamp]

The funny thing about signing binaries, it only helps to authenticate the author and to defend against the random memory corruption. It does nothing at all for defending from things like local and remote exploits, which corrupt the memory intentionally by using bugs already present in the signed binaries.

Re:Masses reaction

[mysidia]

Not to worry, my faithful, mandatory binary signing will be here soon enough.

Yes, worry. The "malware" binary will be validly signed; and in some way, not technically malware -- the malware will be part of the unsigned data payload loaded by the benign binary. The benign binary will be something like /usr/bin/python, and may be shipped with the OS itself... (how much higher a level of trust can you get for a binary?)

Re:Masses reaction

[mrnobo1024]

This might have been a good point in 1987, but today most serious malware spreads by exploiting bugs in legitimate software. Why rely on the user to run your evil program manually when buffer overflows and such are so abundant?

Having an "execute bit" doesn't do anything to stop that (unless you mark all your programs non-executable, of course; that'll make sure you're secure ;))

Re:Masses reaction

[scot4875]

Compare and contrast this to the Windows world where the execute bit is tied to 3 letters in the file name and Windows will duly execute the file as soon as it's double-clicked. Malware in this system goes from machine to machine because Windows assumes that a file is permitted to execute if it whispers the correct shibboleth of "exe, com, scr" or what have you.

This hasn't been true for a *long* time. Go ahead; try downloading something and run it on any patched and updated XP, Vista, or Win7 box. At the very least, it will give you the "run unsigned application from ?", and you'll get multiple warnings on Vista or Win7.

The thing is, though, it doesn't matter how many warnings you throw up; users will simply keep clicking through everything until they get their shiny cursors. Of course, maybe Macs still have an advantage here, in that the OSX is the pinnacle of design perfection, so no user would ever *want* to download and install a purely cosmetic change.

--Jeremy

Re:Masses reaction

[errandum]

You miss the point, I think.

Whoever double clicks something to install assuming it is legit will also gladly insert their username/password.

In terms of security windows is actually more robust from a security standpoint than mac os, but it's also targeted a lot more. And I don't mean file permissions, I mean actual design flaws.

You're safer while using a mac, no doubt about it. But the OS with the most security features IS windows.

And if you don't believe me, I'll quote:

"Paul Kocher, president and chief scientist at Cryptography Research: "The fair answer is that with the latest versions of each operating system there isn't a compelling security reason to pick one or the other. It used to be that Apple was doing a better job, but with Windows 7 Microsoft has caught up. There are some differences; Windows has a better security ecosystem. On the other hand, Apple tends to have more expensive hardware and has a smaller market share, so it attracts fewer malware writers. Both have security bugs. Both need patches. Both can be broken if someone finds a zero-day exploit."

or

"Charlie Miller, a principal analyst at consultancy Independent Security Evaluators: "Technologically speaking, PCs are a little more secure than Macs. Macs have a larger attack surface out of the box (Flash, Java, support for a million file formats, etc.) and lack some anti-exploitation technologies found in PCs like full ASLR [Address Space Layout Randomization]. This means Macs have more vulnerabilities and it's easier to turn a vulnerability into an exploit on the platform. Despite the fact it is less secure, paradoxically, Macs are actually safer to use for most people. This is because there simply isn't much risk of being exploited or installing malware."

or even

"Rich Mogull, CEO at Securosis: "It depends on which version of Windows we're talking about. Clearly there are major differences between Windows XP and Windows 7. Second is, are we talking about safety versus security? Microsoft has done more in terms of its inherent security features than Apple has in the operating system. All of that said, Microsoft gets attacked a lot more than Apple does. Right now your odds of being infected as a Mac user by malicious software are quite a bit lower than a Windows user, unless you do stupid things, such as download free versions of commercial software. And some of the pornography sites on the Internet, the dark corners of the Internet have stuff that will hurt a Mac."

It's not my opinion. It's the expert's opinion.

Re:Masses reaction

[rsborg]

"Charlie Miller, a principal analyst at consultancy Independent Security Evaluators: "Technologically speaking, PCs are a little more secure than Macs. Macs have a larger attack surface out of the box (Flash, Java, support for a million file formats, etc.) and lack some anti-exploitation technologies found in PCs like full ASLR [Address Space Layout Randomization]...."

Your quote from Mr. Miller is way out of date. Apple now doesn't include Flash or Java by default, and does implement (although weakly) ASLR.

Re:Masses reaction

[Haedrian]

Nobody with a brain has ever claimed that OSX is impervious

There you go. There's your problem right there.

Re:Masses reaction

[cybermage]

Of course, Faust's deal with the devil was signed too.

Re:Masses reaction

[exomondo]

Compare and contrast this to the Windows world where the execute bit is tied to 3 letters in the file name and Windows will duly execute the file as soon as it's double-clicked.

No it doesn't, don't spread FUD. You will always get security warnings when trying to run unsigned executables.

Re:Masses reaction

[mellon]

You may find this less comforting when all your bank account information, which is owned by you, not by root, gets scooped off of your computer over the net. Likewise, it's trivial to add startup items; these run with your permissions, so they don't have total control over the machine, but they can still stick around and propogate.

Re:Masses reaction

[hairyfeet]

Actually, and I'll probably get flamed for saying this, you'd be surprised how many have bought the "you just can't infect a Mac!" meme. I got called into an SMB a few years back, where the guy instead of listening to me and paying me to set up a sensible top to bottom least permission approach bought into the "can't infect a Mac!" meme and then was shocked! shocked I tell you, when he found out he got pwned thanks to one of his kids wanting to watch a naughty video and getting the DNS changer bug.

You see the problem is something we that have been in the trenches for quite awhile (I started with Win 3.x, what was that? 20 years ago?) sadly run into far too often, it is what I like to call "magical thinking". it is the "If I use product X I won't have to change my habits or anything, and I'll be unhackable" bullshit. Hell I remember when firewall resellers were pushing the "if you have a firewall you are invisible and untouchable!" and it was bullshit then and it is bullshit now.

NEWS FLASH...ALL OSes can be hacked, full stop. ALL OSes are extremely complex pieces of code, with interactions on top of interactions with third party code thrown in the mix just for shits and giggles. There is NO perfectly unhackable OS and if there was one that person could hire Bill Gates to shine his shoes. The last real legitimate gripe about Windows, the brain dead "hey lets run everyone as admin!" finally died hard with Vista, so frankly all OSes are on about the same footing, as in TFA it all comes down to what the malware writer thinks is profitable.

Think OSX is immune? Read TFA. Think Linux can't be pwned? Look at the Android malware or the KDE screensaver malware that spread awhile back or even this handy how to guide on writing Linux malware.

The ONLY solution is a top to bottom least permissions approach, not magical thinking. Least permissions and users not being so brain dead they actively help the malware writer is the ONLY solution.

As a final note let me give a recent example. I set up a box, had it locked down nicely, required password for admin, least permissions, yet it got pwned in under 45 days. Did I miss something? Nope, the user decided he just had to have Limewire, even though I told him not to, so he disabled the antivirus because it wouldn't in his words "shut up" and then promptly gave permissions to Limewire to do whatever it wanted. And boy did it, 60+ pieces of malware.

So in the end it doesn't matter what the OS, it doesn't matter what kind of permissions model you set up, if you have someone with admin rights that says "I want my emails from Melissa and you WILL let me have them!" then no matter what OS, you're screwed. An OS is only as good as the PEBKAC sitting in front of it.

Re:Masses reaction

[farnsworth]

Apple now doesn't include Flash or Java by default

I have an Air from a couple months ago, and it came with Java right there in /usr/bin/. I haven't installed Lion yet, but I would be surprised if Java was absent. It's not impossible, but that would be a fairly sudden removal.

Re:Masses reaction

[hairyfeet]

Actually your point would better be phrased "MSFT should just say I quit and tell everyone to buy an iPhone" as backwards compatibility is what sells Windows and if I can't run my programs why in the hell am I gonna pay for Windows? I can run Linux for free or just buy a Macbook.

And you know what? For all the Linux and Apple guys creaming about legacy cruft we Windows guys like backwards compatibility same as most of us happen to like the registry, thank you VERY much! I LIKE having a new quad core with 8Gb of RAM and a 64bit OS and still being able to play NOLF 2. I LIKE the fact that the couple of thousand bucks I got invested in games still work (well as long as I go to Gamecopyworld for a crack, thanks SecuROM, you ass muncher) and my customers LIKE having all their expensive photo and business software "just work" even after getting a new OS!

To get rid of backwards compatibility would frankly be suicide, because it is the huge third party library of software and games that keeps people on Windows. Hell if I figured it up I probably have over 10,000 dollars in Windows software, is MSFT gonna give me that money back? Hell it is all the third party software that keeps the Wine guys working nights, as they know that its the programs NOT the OS that keeps people on Windows. lose that and they may as well close up shop.

The ONLY way to get rid of backwards compatibility with all the billions of dollars users have invested and hundreds of millions of Windows users is to write the baddest ass VM in the history of mankind, a VM so damned simple your grandma wouldn't even have to know what a VM was, while at the same time working on no less than THREE CPUs (AMD,Intel,Via) with both in order AND out of order execution (Atom through the latest Intel and AMD multicores) and on top of all that having to support no less than THREE GPU manufacturers and give at least enough acceleration that everything that runs on XP would run (actually I'd include Win98 as well, since currently Win9X software will run most of the time).

So frankly it would be probably one of the most expensive R&D projects in the history of MSFT, and if they boned it? People would be paying guys like me to wipe their OS in mass, just as I spent a year making Vista disappear for XP. If it comes down to several thousand dollars in software or having to run an old OS? Well fuck MSFT I have a firewall, and so do most other folks. It would be suicide.

Re:Masses reaction

[DJRumpy]

This isn't a hack. It asks for an admin password and then launches an installer, assuming you have Safari set to open 'safe' packages. It's another trojan, not a virus. I seriously doubt that anyone believes a Mac is unhackable (white hat conventions put that to bed years ago as OS X is typically one of the first to be hacked). This is a lot of noise about nothing and no different than someone downloading software from an unknown source and installing it, putting in the admin password when prompted, and then feeling shocked when something bad happens. The only difference here is that they see the installer/admin password prompt while browsing which would alarm most Mac users, especially with a prompt for an admin password. Turning off the 'open safe' option in Safari would disable this vector.

This is not some clever hidden install that happens behind the scenes without some user intervention. The simple truth is that OS X, Linux, and Unix all have basic protections that Windows lacks in regards to executables, and when it comes to executables, the user is the weakest point, not the OS.

Re:Masses reaction

[weicco]

Last time I had to clean up a Windows was because my ex-wife's 13 year old cousin just needed to have smileys on Messenger. I don't know where she downloaded the package. She got smileys and couple of other things which took me 4 hours to remove.

So in my mind trojans aren't just noise about nothing. They may need user interaction to install or run but there's plenty of users who happily install every application they get their hands on.

You are right. The problem is the user. But you are wrong about Windows. Vista and 7 has plenty of protection mechanism like UAC trying to keep the system safe. Some stupid users just disable UAC and run Windows without any password because they are lazy-asses. Then they bitch about Windows when their system is running sluggishly because all the viruses running in the background.

Re:Masses reaction

[mwvdlee]

So just like IOS, you won't be able to install any application that lets you create or run unpaid^wunsafe code.

Re:Masses reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, does this count as the 44th malware threat on OS X (based on a cited post from the AV thread yesterday that said there are 43 threats over the life of OS X)

43 confirmed viruses for OSX. Virus is only one VERY specific type of malware, and in fact viruses are seldom seen on any platform these days.

When was the last time Apple actually claimed to be immune or secure from viruses? They don't. They make vague claims of being "more secure", and run ads which seem to imply they don't get infections although they don't actually ever say It. Instead, they just make vague comments about how "vulnerable" the "PC's" are (as if a Mac isn't a personal computer or something), and then let their hoards of rabid fanboys run around shouting about how Macs are immune to blah blah blah.

Go ask the guys who keep hacking Macs at the annual pwn2own contest how safe those boxes are. They'll laugh at you.

Re:Masses reaction

[catmistake]

Unfortunately, lots of programs don't work right if you don't run as administrator.

That is an interesting way to put it. But we know the real issue is that lots of Windows programmers don't code right if you don't force them to test their fucking code. I believe the entire point of Vista, besides the whole 'New Coke' money grab, was to retrain Windows developers to do things correctly.

Re:Masses reaction

[jbolden]

You can look at IBM. You can do it. The OS has to have capabilities for handling legacy applications which are unsafe, sandboxing them and virtualizing their interconnections with other applications.

Re:Masses reaction

[jimicus]

But in the end you really can't blame MSFT for this one, since their recommendations on writing permissions has been the same since Win2K pro, it is just nearly every third party vendor just gave MSFT the bird and wrote everything as admin because it was the lazy way to go. But if you are dealing with a vendor who after FOUR YEARS of UAC STILL hasn't bothered to write an acceptable program with normal permissions I would seriously be pushing for another vendor. After all if they can't even code correct permissions, what other shoddy code have they let slip by?

As would I, but the OP you're replying to is a slightly special case because they're working in a school.

Educational software tends to fall into one of two camps:

1. It does a first-class job of getting the message across to the pupils. Unfortunately the person who wrote it wouldn't know a Microsoft recommendation if it bit them on the bum. It ships to the school with installation instructions saying "Visit every PC in turn, insert the CD and go Start, Run, D:\install.exe"; there isn't an MSI. Further investigation suggests that repackaging as an MSI is somewhat awkward because the installer does all sorts of different things depending on what it finds when it runs. (This was certainly the case a few years ago, I don't know if things have improved much since but I doubt it, particularly with the mention that UAC often needs disabling).

2. It's dead easy to run it from a network location or deploy it using an MSI. Indeed, that's exactly what they recommend you do if you've got more than a couple of PCs. Unfortunately, it really doesn't do a terribly good job of getting the message across to pupils.

Guess which sort tends to get purchased by eager teachers trying to find something to make their life a little easier?

Well?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

All I want to know is whether this malware is worthy of the Apple platform or not: Does it use Grand Central Dispatch to efficiently allocate the load of multiple form-stealing processes between all my system's cores? Are the misleading dialog boxes that frighten me further into folly fully compliant with Apple's HID guidelines?

If I'm going to get Mac malware, I damn well better have the best malware experience that the industry has to offer. Heck, I'd probably even be willing to pay $20 for something that windows users get for free and linux nerds compile from source, if the interface is good enough...

99c?

[oldmac31310]

Is it available at the app store?

Regarding MACDefender

[Anonymous Coward]

MACDefender requires that you agree to install it. It's not able to infect your Mac without your knowledge and consent.
AND : Just drop it in the trash bin to get rid of it. Hassle free. Click and drag. That's it.

BTW : The Kit has not yet proven it's functionality and works (if it does) currently only with FireFox.

Still too early for iHate, schadenfreude or panic.
There is still no single widespread, dangerous and working malware for OS X out there. Period.

Re:Security through Obscurity = FAIL

[Gohtar]

I submit they are more so, since they have a falsely inflated sense of security.

Where others have failed, Apple will win

[sqrt(2)]

The reason Apple will be able to win here where Windows hasn't been able to is because of the App Store for the Mac. Users who are not sufficiently savvy to vet software themselves can rely solely on the App Store to do that, and since only software that is verified by Apple can get on there, we are unlikely to see any malware sneak into the App Store or stay there for long. And if it does, Apple has the author's identity (CC info, etc), which although able to be faked could still serve as a starting point for a criminal investigation by the police. People who know enough to keep safe can still install software from other places, but for most people the App Store, privilege system based on the Unix model, and a more secure starting codebase is going to protect them.

Re:Security through Obscurity = FAIL

[jo_ham]

Well, the answer will be "yes" - if you are stupid (which is harsh - let's say uninformed) enough to be fooled by the sorts of things that malware gets up to (like "click here for a free system check!" or "check it out, so sexy!!! - natalie-portmans-hot-grits.jpg.exe" then the penetration rate per-platform is going to be broadly similar. You're going to have a portion of your userbase who are susceptible to this, along with another portion who set blanket passwords for all of their activities and set it to "password1".

Windows has the problem that not only does it have to contend with this user problem (which is common to both platforms [win and OS X], and less common on Linux/non-Mac-BSD), but it has also faced the "swiss cheese operating system" problem that they have been trying to fix since malware first came about. OS X at least has the benefit of starting from a better platform (BSD core) than Windows' legacy issues. That's not to say it's immune to threats - the fact that there are security updates for OS X disprove that.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been a more high profile virus or malware outbreak on OS X before now, since even with the smaller marketshare (1 in 5 new computers sold in the US is a Mac, but total install base is still nearer 10%), the "kudos" for "sticking their nose in it" is high.

Re:Can someone tell me how "form stealing" works?

[Lord_Jeremy]

Assuming that this software is actually intended to be running on the "compromised" system (which I find no indication of in either TFA, the article it links to, or google results), then what it does is exploit FireFox to "hijack" cgi webscripts on websites and use them to send spam email. Pretty much it would send data through a web request to a page that's intended to send email (like forum registration perhaps) that would essentially make the email handler crash or open a backdoor and then inject spam email into the form that would get sent by the website's server. It's a clever way of getting around spam filters blocking known spam email carriers - if your spam is being sent from multitudes of legitimate websites that just have poor software security it's much harder to identify and block.

My big question is how this is supposed to get on the target system. To date, the only Mac OS X malware discovered in the wild has been virtually harmless, since it all comes in the form of a trojan. Some not very nice person disguises their malware in a piece of pirated software and upload it to torrent sites or whatnot. Some people download it and get infected because they don't realize the danger of such an occurrence. From what I've read, the security firms typically classify these trojans as extremely low-risk, with something like fewer than 50 confirmed infections. The point is, there are as yet no "drive by" or otherwise spontaneous infections you can get on a Mac. Any bad things that could happen rely on some form of social engineering or deception. The way OSes work, if you can convince an Administrator (of any system) to run something then you generally can do whatever you want. The Mac OS X security model is in many ways stronger than the Windows security model, but it's certainly not infallible. Macs are immune to the type of autorun viruses that are spread by removable media because they don't support automatic execution of programs on removable media (I can't for the life of me understand why the hell anyone would want autorun enabled on their system). On the other hand, the default OS X user/first one created is an Administrator. They aren't a superuser but things like global-scope installers have the permission to use the equivalent of 'sudo' if an Administrator enters their password. It's like UAC on Vista/7 - a large majority of people don't think twice about clicking "Yes" to whatever comes up on their screen (the other day my fiancé unwitting installed a browser toolbar and changed her home page on her PC because she didn't uncheck a few boxes in the installer for some freeware). I'd like to think that by being asked to enter a password a user is more likely to consider what they're authorizing but in most cases, the user is the weakest link.

Terms of Art

[PopeRatzo]

God, I love jargon.

"Crimeware", "scareware"... I heard there's a group of Buddhist cybercriminals who have created something called "Beware". When it infects your system it gives all your worldly possessions to them.

If you happen to encounter this type of malware while using your computer, kill it.

Re:actual Mac users

[TaoPhoenix]

Actually I was playing off quotes about 2-3 stories ago "Mac doesn't need anti-virus" where slahdot users were promoting that very idea.

Re:Idiotware?

[joh]

The difference is that only very few Mac apps require an admin password since most are just bundles you throw into your Applications folder (or where you want them to be) without actually "installing" (= spraying files and data all over the system) anything.

Maybe not a really huge difference, but most people are not really used to that and any app running an actual installer is eyed with suspicion.

It would help a lot if apps like Adobe Reader wouldn't needlessly come with such an installer. But then it's very nearly malware anyway.

Re:actual Mac users

[DJRumpy]

This isn't a virus. It's a trojan, and it can't do anything unless you put in your admin password, and then allow the installer to actually install. Not exactly low profile. I agree with the parent. Mac users will probably just ignore it.

Re:actual Mac users

[mwvdlee]

Seeing as how this type of malware seems to account for some 99% of all infections in the PC world, I'm anxious to see how well it'll work for all those "I bought a mac because it looked so shiny" people.

iPhone exploits

[DrYak]

Yeah, right. Because, thanks to the restrictions inside iOS, no exploit has ever been made against iPhones. No one has ever successfully jail-broken them~~
Neither for the PlayStation 3 : as soon as Sony blocked the OtherOS, absolutely nobody found alternative way to get homebrew on the PS3~~

DRM gives you only the illusion of security.

Re:actual Mac users

[Coren22]

or free programs without some background check

Damn, I better uninstall Linux then, I don't know where its been...