Slashdot Mirror
New Targeted Mac OS X Trojan Requires No User Interaction
An anonymous reader writes "Another Mac OS X Trojan has been spotted in the wild; this one exploits Java vulnerabilities just like the Flashback Trojan. Also just like Flashback, this new Trojan requires no user interaction to infect your Apple Mac. Kaspersky refers to it as 'Backdoor.OSX.SabPub.a' while Sophos calls it at 'SX/Sabpab-A.'"
from TFA: "if you’ve downloaded and installed the latest software updates from Apple that patch the Java vulnerabilities (or disabled Java), you’re safe" (for now).
But it looks like the good times are over.
This Trojan further underlines the importance of protecting Macs against malware with an updated anti-virus program as well as the latest security updates.
Doesn't that seem to come off as a slightly counter-intuitive statement? Is it unreasonable to come away from this article asking yourself "Why buy anti-virus when the malware just avoids it anyway?"
It is trying to hide its similarity to other malware so that a new signature is needed to detect this specific variant. So while anti-virus programs may not detect this now, within a few days they probably will, at least until there is yet another variant. Apple is, of course, including their own signatures right in the OS so that makes antivirus less attractive as well, although Apple's response time has been hit and miss.
No, because you still have to navigate to a web site. It is a trojan because they need to entice you to do so.
Isn't a Trojan that requires no user interaction by definition a Virus?
Not really.
Trojan - malware posing as legitimate software.
Virus - malware that copies itself either replacing or attaching to legitimate software.
Worm - malware that copies itself from system to system automatically without user interaction.
This software seems to be automatically installed when the user follows a link in their Web browser, but there is no indication that it in any way sends more links to people. So this malware does not fit neatly into any of the common categories. "Virus" seems to be a catch all term these days so you might as well call it that.
You are looking for com.apple.PubSabAgent.pfile & com.apple.PubSabAGent.plist and NOT com.PubSubAgent.plist or com.PubSubAgent.pfile.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The definition of worm is not "malware that copies itself from system to system automatically without user interaction". Worm is self-replicating code that uses a network, by some defintions, and, by others, a worm is any malware that spreads by itself but does not parasite legitimate software (thus why "USB worms").
Although the Morris worm did not require user interaction, this is not true of all future malware that would be considered a worm. Malware that copies itself to network drives, P2P software shared folders, or attaches itself to or sends e-mail, IM or IRC messages are all worms.
As for trojans, any malware that does not replicate is a trojan. Back in the day, and even today, the only way to convince a user to run such software is by advertising it as another piece of software - thus why the trojan horse definition. Exploit code changed that, but they're all still trojans, and most still fallback to advertising themselves as a Flash player plugin or video codec when the exploit doesn't work. In any case, this new malware doesn't replicate, so it is a trojan.
There is no malware category to describe code that requires no user interaction to run. Exploits, worms and viruses and trojans all can do it, but that's not required by their definitions.
Reference: http://www.f-secure.com/en/web/labs_global/threat-types
The definition of worm is not "malware that copies itself from system to system automatically without user interaction". Worm is self-replicating code that uses a network, by some defintions, and, by others, a worm is any malware that spreads by itself but does not parasite legitimate software (thus why "USB worms").
I worked in the security industry for many years and never heard anyone call something a "usb worm". If it is copying itself as the result of user interaction, we always called it a virus. If it spread on its own, it was a worm. The definition of "worm" you provide does not seem to differentiate itself from a virus in any way. Something that copies itself via shared disks is almost the classic poster child for a virus. The term originated talking about malware spread on floppies.
Darn you kids and your newfangled definitions!