Slashdot Mirror


New MacDefender Defeats Apple Security Update

XxtraLarGe writes "Apple released a security update yesterday designed to rid Macs of the menacing MacDefender malware that has plagued users for nearly a month. But mere hours after the update, cyber-criminals released a new variant of the malware that easily defeated Apple's belated security efforts. That didn't take long."

25 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory Clarification by maccodemonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple's security update include a new daily malware definitions update. So this is hardly the easy defeat that the description is hinting at. More like the beginning of a long drawn out war...

    1. Re:Obligatory Clarification by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Welcome to the windows security world. it's the end of "it just works" and the begining of "it just works as long as you do X, Y, and Z right".

    2. Re:Obligatory Clarification by maccodemonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      So far, I'd disagree with that. The malware detection is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating. So the user doesn't have to do X, Y, or even Z at all. We're still at "It just works."

      Not saying that couldn't change in the future, but we're not there yet.

    3. Re:Obligatory Clarification by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      maccodemonkey writes:

      So far, I'd disagree with that. The malware detection is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating. So the user doesn't have to do X, Y, or even Z at all. We're still at "It just works."

      Not saying that couldn't change in the future, but we're not there yet.

      Okay, maccodemonkey, here's the thing: if the malware detection which is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating is defeated within hours of it being release, we are no longer at "It just works." What part of "It doesn't work anymore" sounds like "It just works" to you?!?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Obligatory Clarification by Hamsterdan · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was working at an ISP during that period. Before Win 95, we had to *license* Netscape, send out two floppies containing Netscape, Trumpet Winsock and a connection script on two floppies (or sell them in a box as our Internet Access Kit). When 95 came out, IE was free for the ISP, so only one floppy with a configuration script and IE. Later on, only the configuration script was needed. Since it was only one floppy and IE was free, it cost way less that way, and we saved one floppy. Besides, since everything was included in 95, it could even be done over the phone. That's what really killed Netscape IMO. Netscape 3.02 was a better browser than IE3 or IE4, but since IE was free and good enough, that's was people used, especially new costumers. Heck, I remember when we shipped Mosaic :)

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    5. Re:Obligatory Clarification by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Given that "Windows Security Center" already detects most remotely common AV packages and whines at you if you don't have one running and in good condition it would be simple enough to simply replace that behavior with "If 3rd party AV present, do nothing(as at present). If 3rd party AV not present or inactive, run MSE(instead of whining, as at present).

      Doesn't change the effectively whack-a-mole nature of antivirus(particularly now that sneaky shit like kernel-mode DRM drivers and silent phoning home are features of "legitimate" software...); but it wouldn't be a significant problem in itself.

    6. Re:Obligatory Clarification by spun · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fuck Windows too. This is Slashdot. I have a four digit user ID. What operating system do you think I use, dipshit?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  2. And this is surprising why? by jo_ham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a new piece of malware, as far as definitions go. It will be blocked tomorrow when the tool checks for new definitions.

    It still requires that you dismiss the "this file appears to be a file downloaded from the internet from [address], are you sure you want to run it?" dialog box. Plus, with no admin password it's local user only (which is still bad, just not root capable).

    Alas, the arms race begins. At least it's only trojans.

    1. Re:And this is surprising why? by Angostura · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It will be blocked tomorrow when the tool checks for new definitions.

      That's the interesting question, isn't it - the extent to which Apple has committed the resources to block malware effectively on a daily basis. It'll be interesting to see whether they can nip things in the bud sufficiently to dissuade the bad guys.

    2. Re:And this is surprising why? by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not surprising at all. That's how Windows works too.

  3. Re:Any first hand experience? by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have seen it attempt to get me to download it - I got hit by a google image search result where it showed me a "Finder" in Safari, with an almost convincing progress bar etc while it "scanned for viruses".

    I didn't click the download button though.

  4. This just in... by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once an operating system reaches a certain percentage of the market share, it becomes a viable platform for malware. In other news, I have been using computers since the 286 days and I have yet to get a virus of any kind on any of my personal machines. Why? Because I'm careful. Malware only exists because people aren't careful. No operating system can prevent people from doing something dumb, so stop ragging on Apple (or Microsoft, or IBM, or whoever else you want to crucify) -- this is a problem with people, not software. Always has been.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:This just in... by calmofthestorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Visiting a website shouldn't be able to install malware on my computer. Neither should opening an email, Flash applet, Java applet, Word document, etc. These are all the faults of the relevant vendors.

      Installing random unsigned binaries from the internet? That should be able to do absolutely anything -- it needs to be able to for computers to be general purpose tools. And that includes malware.

      TL;DR social engineering is the user's fault, but sec vulns do exist and are not.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    2. Re:This just in... by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, people have been careless enough to go to a thoroughly reputable site that sells ads. People have even been so careless as to open email from frequent correspondents. (Both of those bit my wife, who's far from being ignorant or careless.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Yeah, but .. by n5vb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. have they figured out how to install it without asking an admin user for permission?

    Until that happens, it's not really a security issue, it's still a social engineering hack. And no platform is immune to social engineering hacks because there are always end users dumb enough to unlock the front door for whatever puts on a good show and let it walk right in and take over.

    If someone figures out a way to bypass Installer and run unsigned code without at least throwing a warning, then I'll worry ..

  6. Re:Mac users, start crying from nostalgia by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What viruses, as a matter of interest? Or do you mean trojans, which are not the same thing at all - which are an issue for any OS, regardless of security since it's a social engineering issue (less so for Linux I would imagine, since the user base tends to be skewed towards people who can spot a trojan from a mile off).

    It's hardly just "security through obscurity" - you make it sound like OS X was designed like a car with the doors and windows unlocked, when it clearly wasn't. It's not perfect, but it is pretty good, and it does receive regular security updates in anticipation of attacks against it, it's just not until now that we've seen anything widespread, and even then it's been pretty limited - an ineffective trojan that is easy to remove (takes about 3 minutes total, or less) that requires you give it your express permission to install (and your admin password). The new one is modified to be local user only, so doesn't even have root.

    It's not great, clearly, since any malware targeting your platform is a pain in the ass, but you're painting it like OS X has been sitting here doing nothing for the 10 years it's been around and only escaped by standing behind Windows - the legions of security updates and software policy on the OS itself would beg to differ.

    Not that even the very best and most secure OS could stop this malware (having never "seen" it before), since it's entirely a social engineering security bypass. The conman tricked his way past your security guards and is stealing your TV.

  7. Seen it three times this month by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Usually while doing a Google image search. I was searching for everything from ships to aircraft, so this doesn't appear to be just a porn/warez problem.

    Still, there's a major difference between this and Windows malware. The "Install me now" routine pops up, but you have to voluntarily enter your username and password for it to infect you on the Mac. You can become infected on Windows just by surfing the wrong website. But I suppose it's only a matter of time before the scumbag malware makers of the world find a way around that.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  8. There is no protection against stupidity. by mario_grgic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No software can protect the user from themselves. If someone is determined to download something and install it, how do you prevent that short of locking the system like iOS? I really don't want to see that happening to OS X.

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
  9. Re:And for years Mac Users have been telling me li by mario_grgic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is still amusing to watch idiots proclaim "menacing" malware something first of all that requires you to download it and install it on your computer and second even when you do it does nothing menacing to your system :D.

    OS X still has 0 viruses, which what I care about. If someone wrote a virus for OS X, something that installs without my intervention and approval, then I would be alarmed. Otherwise, I don't care about the social engineering attacks. Idiots will always fall prey to those.

    So yes, I still feel infinitely safer using anything but Windows as far as viruses are concerned.

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
  10. Re:Apple has to step up their game. by CaptainPatent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is MacDefender a portend of Malware waves upon OS X? Unlikely, and it really has nothing to do with market share. I know this is a tired argument, but the "You're day is coming OS X, just wait until you're worthwhile to hack!" idea just hasn't played out no matter how many times security researchers shout it from their blogs/websites (often times alongside links to purchase Macintosh AV software).

    Of course it hasn't played out. Mac OS still only has a little over 7% of the market pinned down. Windows collectively (between XP, Vista and Windows 7) controls over 80% of the market. That means that besides smaller proof-of-concept exploits programed for fun, there is still very limited utility for mac malware in the wild.

    All I'm saying is that getting from 2% to 8% market share will be much easier than getting from 8% to 32% and now that they're getting to almost an 8% market share, the first signs of malware are popping up.

    I'd also like to say that while the 2nd MacDefender is indeed much more of a social engineering hack than anything, the first version did exploit a major bug which allowed root access without any additional permissions. Mac vulnerabilities are out there - and that one was a huge one so it was exploited, but look at the numbers - right now to get similar processing power or informational exploit pools, you'd have to have a hack that's literally 10 times as rampant on Mac than on PC.

    It is and always will be a numbers game.

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  11. Re:Any first hand experience? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Same happened to me (Google image search and all, and not even for anything that would take me to the sort of places on the 'net where I'd expect malware to reside), except that it offered no download button and instead downloaded immediately. I have my Safari set up to not automatically open "safe" files, so that's as far as it got, but it was annoying nonetheless.

  12. Re:Mac users, start crying from nostalgia by jimicus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We know it's not a virus. But whether you like it or not, the word has become a generic term meaning "malware" to the layman.

    Traditional, self-replicating, can-spread-through-no-other-means file-infector viruses on Windows are not particularly common these days. They exist, and there's generally one or two in the "top 10 things to watch for" at any given point in time but pure viruses don't represent the majority of malware and haven't done in some time. Typically, you'll find they also act as trojans and worms.

    This doesn't stop such things causing harm.

  13. Re:Apple has to step up their game. by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All I'm saying is that getting from 2% to 8% market share will be much easier than getting from 8% to 32% and now that they're getting to almost an 8% market share, the first signs of malware are popping up.

    But by this defintiion of malware, Unix had malware when it had a 0.001% market share.

    echo 'Hey, dude, forward this email to everyone you know, then type sudo rm -rf /' | mail bozo@idiotsrus.com

    By the definition being used here, that's not just unix malware, it's a unix virus. Yet no-one in their right mind would be worried about it.

  14. Re:Any first hand experience? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google Image Search is EVIL

    I was looking for a certain type of connector, so I google image'd it. While perusing results for something as totally bland as surface mount connectors, I suddenly got a UAC prompt. Even after canceling it, I got an icon in the taskbar. Thankfully the denied UAC kept it from getting its hooks in, and I promptly found and deleted the offending file.

    Now, I won't even touch Google Image Search through a remote connection to a virtual machine running Chrome in a sandbox on someone else's network.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  15. OS/2 user obviously ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Funny

    Fuck Windows too. This is Slashdot. I have a four digit user ID. What operating system do you think I use, dipshit?

    Given the 90s timeframe and your level of anger I'd say you are obviously a very disappointed OS/2 user. ;-)