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.'"

48 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. No user interaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, what you're saying is, It Just Works?

    1. Re:No user interaction by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't a Trojan that requires no user interaction by definition a Virus?

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:No user interaction by Mitchell314 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh come on slashdot, I'm a mac fan and even I found this funny. No need to mod down.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    3. Re:No user interaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, because you still have to navigate to a web site. It is a trojan because they need to entice you to do so.

    4. Re:No user interaction by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:No user interaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, viruses propagate. Worms self-propagate.

    6. Re:No user interaction by Altieres+Rohr · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    7. Re:No user interaction by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 5, Informative

      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!

    8. Re:No user interaction by Altieres+Rohr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mass-mailers requiring user interaction are called worms since forever. But many older worms used some form of exploit code, and Melissa was called a virus because it was actually an Office file infector (a macro virus). It's easy to see the reason for confusion.

      Love Letter was already being called a worm without exploiting any flaws back in 2000, though*, so was Sircam in 2001 and Bugbear/Thanatos in 2002. By the time Netsky, Beagle and Mimail were around, it was pretty clear a worm was any malware that replicated itself completely over a network and without the use of a host file. When USB drives became common, the term was used for those as well. Floppy viruses infected the boot sector ("infected" being the keyword); malware that spreads over USB just use the Windows autorun function.

      Any malware parasite can infect a program that will end up in a USB drive, in the same way that the Parite virus ended up spreading over e-mail when it infected a copy of Beagle (IIRC). A USB worm specifically looks for connected USB drives and copies itself to them. There's a difference.

      * http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2000-04.html

    9. Re:No user interaction by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps, but if that link is to "ad.doubleclick.net" or "ad.yieldmanager.net" then no conscious interaction is required, a legitimate site can infect you just as easily.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  2. Missing from summary by dr2chase · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Missing from summary by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I didn't consider mac users lording their "super advanced security and magical virus immunity" as "good times." It's about time someone reminded them that Windows is far more secure, it's just targetted more. This is going to be the beginning of a long line of taking them down a notch.

    2. Re:Missing from summary by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But it looks like the good times are over.

      At least until you remove Java (and preferably Flash and Acrobat Reader), or set plugins to click-to-run, or they finally implement signed apps and sandboxing (which Apple keeps delaying since developers keep screaming about it).

      It's ridiculous that all browsers don't require you to approve plugins, at least on a per-site level, but it's true there are still quite a few sites out there that break in strange ways if some hidden java or flash element fails to load. Still, I'd rather live with that than trust my computers' security to Adobe and Oracle.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:Missing from summary by errandum · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, the general idea is that they were very secure. Not too long ago I was modded into oblivion because I said windows is, by design, more secure that Mac OS. So obviously, I dropped the subject and never posted about it again.

      If no one is allowed to talk about it, the general impression will be that they are, indeed, more secure (at least here).

    4. Re:Missing from summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is that Java security hole that we heard about over the last weeks Mac-specific or cross-platform? Any reason to worry or to have our belief in Java security shattered? Or just a conspiracy of several factors in the Mac environment?

      The malware writers could in theory do the same thing to Linux distros. However the openjdk and java on Linux is essentially different in as much as the methods to run and install to a user home directory a downloaded .so the way this malware does cannot happen on Linux distros in as much as the user is the only one on Linux who can direct which binaries run from within a user profile at login.

      I know this is a mouthful for those who do not understand but I would highly recommend looking into how exactly this malware works. Here is how the default set-up of OS X can be subverted to install a binary to a hidden user directory without user permission or knowledge. Then download a binary which is really smart that will try to get user permission to install system wide and if it does not receive this permission it just does it to the ill informed Mac user without permission. With Linux the system would not allow a .so to be loaded to a user /home directory and then set it to run at login. This is the problem with Mac security there is also a huge hole in the way binaries can run from within a /home at login without permission!

      Here is a run-down of how it works and why it will only work on Mac because its method of infection does not require user interaction to install the payload to a users home directory with Mac OS. However I have the feeling that this security nightmare will be addressed by the Apple coders simply by doing things the way most Linux distros do!

      From a CNET article:

      How does it work?

      The Flashback malware injects code into applications (specifically Web browsers) that will be executed when they run, and which then send screenshots and other personal information to remote servers.

      First step: Exploiting Java
      When you encounter the malicious Web page containing the malware and have an unpatched version of Java running on your system, it will first execute a small Java applet that when run will break the Java security and write a small installer program to the user's account. The program is named something like .jupdate, .mkeeper, .flserv, .null or .rserv, and the period in front of it makes it appear hidden in the default Finder view.

      In addition, the Java applet will write a launcher file named something like "com.java.update.plist", "com.adobe.reader.plist", "com.adobe.flp.plist" or even "null.plist" to the current user's ~/Library/LaunchAgents/ folder, which will continually launch the .jupdate program whenever the user is logged in.

      In order to avoid detection, the installer will first look for the presence of some antivirus tools and other utilities that might be present on a power user's system, which according to F-Secure include the following: /Library/Little Snitch /Developer/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/MacOS/Xcode /Applications/VirusBarrier X6.app /Applications/iAntiVirus/iAntiVirus.app /Applications/avast!.app /Applications/ClamXav.app /Applications/HTTPScoop.app /Applications/Packet Peeper.app

      If these tools are found, then the malware deletes itself in an attempt to prevent detection by those who have the means and capability to do so. Many malware programs use this behavior, as was seen in others such as the Tsunami malware bot.

      Second step: Downloading the payload
      When the jupdate program executes, it will connect to a remote server and download a payload program that is the

    5. Re:Missing from summary by dr2chase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It WAS cross-platform (in theory). Apple was slow to release a patch, everyone else (who was up to the latest rev of Java) is fine, because non-Apple Java had a patch for this before the Trojans were deployed.

      Java has a better in-theory story than most things exposed to the web because it is (by design) invulnerable to buffer overruns. In practice, however, it uses native libraries for some important stuff, and those have the buffer overrun problem. I don't know the details of this bug, however. I find the seemingly neverending stream of vulnerabilities in everything to be more than a little depressing.

    6. Re:Missing from summary by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have said this before here and will say this again.

      For the Tech Support pros reading this
      1. Use FoxitPDF or Summutra PDF. They will at least prompt you before blindly opening a PDF from a website and executing it in no sandbox with full javascript unlike Adobe Reader.
      2. If you must support Java for corporate users create a GPO that enforces Java in Intranet only! No internet zone java if you must use crappy Kronos or ADP apps. If the users need Java in IE for an external site add it to a special custom security zone.
      3. Use Chrome. It has its own PDF reader, does not support Java, and updates flash automatically without user interaction
      4. Use Flashblock and keep it for sites like Pandora or youtube if you support home users or need training sessions in youtube for work.
      5. Use antivirus software. THey are getting much better and no longer slow your whole computer down so much. Even the latest Norton is as light as MSE which is shocking! If you are one of the smirk users who are proud that you are virus free I have to say your an idiot and infected. How? Last week malware was hosted right here on slasdhot in an ad! If you came to slashdot last weekend or before you are infected. Avast! and MSE are both free and pretty decent and only add a few seconds more of boot time.

      Java is not going away and neither is flash nor pdfs. Follow the above steps and you take care of 85% of all security issues unless you run unpatched Windows. I use Java for Eclipse and have Java disabled in all my browsers. Disable it in IE even if you do not use it. Some exploits may call to IE helper ojbects to execute so its a good idea anyway.

      If you do IT and do not follow all of these procedures you are lazy and so many are as many get constant support calls for fake virus scans and slow computers through constant infection from running unpatched old versions of flash, java, and Windows. If you must run insecure old java then do it right and disable it from all sites except Kronos and ADP. That is it! Your infects will drop to near zero

    7. Re:Missing from summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is going to be the beginning of a long line of taking them down a notch.

      What? really? So just because someone uses a Mac instead of Windows means they somehow think they are superior to you? I'm sure there are some people that use Mac that think they are superior but that doesn't mean that everyone using a Mac thinks that. So how about you get off your high horse and stop condemning people based on what OS they choose. I personally prefer Mac OS to Windows. I grew up on Windows from Windows 3.1 to Windows Vista. For me, Mac OS is far more intuitive and streamlined. When I think of Windows I think of Menus and Folders. When I think of Mac I think of Apps and Documents. But I saw the preview of Windows 8 and it looks like they're really working on fixing that. I may switch back one day. But I don't think Mac is inherently better. Just different. I do think its more secure though. Simply because they're far more locked down in their hardware. Windows is designed to work with almost anything which leaves a lot more room for errors to exploit.

    8. Re:Missing from summary by wmbetts · · Score: 3, Informative

      All current versions of OSX are 100% UNIX. It received it's certification in 07 if I remember correctly.

      --
      "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
    9. Re:Missing from summary by Centurix · · Score: 5, Funny

      Two ints and a float are in a bar. They spot an attractive double on her own.
      The first int walks up to her. “Hey, baby”, he says, “my VM or yours”. She slaps him and he walks back dejected.
      The second int walks over. “Hey, cute-stuff, can I lick your Bean?”. After a quick slapping, he too walks back.
      The float then ambles over casually. “Were those two primitive types bothering you?”, he remarks.
      “Yes. I’m so glad you’re here”, she says. “They just had no Class!”

      Borrowed from somewhere else...

      --
      Task Mangler
    10. Re:Missing from summary by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The malware writers could in theory do the same thing to Linux
      distros. However the openjdk and java on Linux is essentially
      different in as much as the methods to run and install to a user
      home directory a downloaded .so the way this malware does
      cannot happen on Linux distros in as much as the user is the
      only one on Linux who can direct which binaries run from within
      a user profile at login.

      If you are able to alter the user's files, then you can pretty much do anything you want with their account. The trick is just figuring out how to do so based what ever GUI they happen to be running. For Macs there just happens to be a single approach. There's no reason this approach couldn't be tailored to Linux and sort itself out with GNOME and KDE. If there's a similar autostart mechanism, then the virus can just manipulate that.

      At the very least, it could install itself at the end of .login or .bashrc.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:Missing from summary by Atzanteol · · Score: 4, Informative

      And it was patched much faster by Oracle and pushed out quicker by the Java install because Microsoft doesn't have insane control issues like Apple does.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    12. Re:Missing from summary by SiMac · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure what you're talking about here. If you have access to a user's account, you can set a binary to run when a user logs in on Linux without administrator privileges. You can call gksudo to put up a dialog asking for administrative privileges so you can modify other users' files as well, or just put up the dialog yourself and hope the user enters their password. This is exactly the same level of security as on OS X. If there's a reason this doesn't work on Linux, you have not communicated it.

      It's unclear to me where the .so comes in, as opposed to a regular binary, but you are aware that you can set LD_PRELOAD and LD_LIBRARY_PATH to whatever you want, right?

    13. Re:Missing from summary by thestuckmud · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think about Apple's insane control issues every time I have to re-install OS X (which I did once for testing purposes). My outrage at not being required to type long registration codes and then have the OS phone home for validation is unspeakable.

    14. Re:Missing from summary by mbadolato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention that horrendous experience of connecting a backup hard drive, waiting 30 minutes then have the new OS installation reboot and be exactly how I had everything before doing a reinstall. That moronic process forces me to not waste 10 hours reinstalling everything, every time. Bastards.

    15. Re:Missing from summary by Guy+Harris · · Score: 4, Informative

      Blah, I should have looked it up before posting. OSX version 10.5 and higher running on Intel processors are UNIX 03 certified.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#OS_X

      Actually, OS X 10.5 and 10.6 running on Intel processors are UNIX 03 certified, but 10.7 isn't.

      But you were probably responding to the poster distinguishing between "OS X" and "UNIX". The problem is that "UNIX" can either mean "an operating system from AT&T^WNovell^WSCO with "UNIX" in its name" or "a specification for operating system APIs and commands". The UNIX trademark refers to the latter, and, in that sense, "UNIX" is not an operating system, it's a specification, and it's not clear what it would mean to have malware targeted at it, unless the malware is portable malware that only uses Single UNIX Specification APIs.

    16. Re:Missing from summary by Guy+Harris · · Score: 3, Informative

      Putting an @reboot entry in the user's crontab would start anything you want when the machine boots, without the user even logging in.

      ...and would do so not only on OS X, but on many Linux distributions and FreeBSD and NetBSD and OpenBSD and....

    17. Re:Missing from summary by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here, or here. They qualify it a bit more accurately now, for obvious reasons, but people really did claim immunity.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    18. Re:Missing from summary by bryan1945 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I look down, and realize my dong is long enough not to care about anyone else's insecurities.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    19. Re:Missing from summary by Glarimore · · Score: 3, Informative

      I reformat my PC once a year on the off chance there is something going on I'm not aware of... and it never takes me more than an hour and a half to do so.

    20. Re:Missing from summary by errandum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I assume you are talking about Time Machine. I've lost more than one "whole install" to corrupt time machine backups. Worse, one of the computers wouldn't even boot after it It was a new computer, changed it for a another, same thing - just ended up restoring my documents only and loosing a shitload of things in the process.

      And FYI, windows also does the time machine thing, they just don't call it "time machine" and don't make it a default option. It's a tool that you need to decide to use and it'll freeze your current computer state into an external hard drive or dvd's.

      The idea of the Time Machine is good, but it's not well executed. From deleting old backups automatically for space (I might want to save some of those old things) to using a nth degree differential backups that depend on the root and the entire backup tree to work... Each time it runs you risk corrupting something so bad the backups will be worthless. I'd rather apple would let me chose folders and just do full zipped/encrypted copies of those I choose. Time Machine just lulls most into a false sense of security

    21. Re:Missing from summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      IE: OSX is about to enter its Win98 era.

      I wouldn't believe anything you hear from Internet Explorer.

    22. Re:Missing from summary by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really, they don't need a wake up call?

      In security update 2012-001 there are 36 patched issues, almost all of which are labelled "may lead to the disclosure of sensitive information", including one TimeMachine issue where a remote attacker could gain access to backups...

      And I'm a Mac user and Apple liker!

    23. Re:Missing from summary by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is a real shame Apple hate Java with a passion. It makes sense since Java can and does run well everywhere it is permitted to - but Steve Jobs wanted to silo Apple, so he could make more money

      Wow, someone doesn't remember history very well. NeXT rewrote some of their core products (e.g. WebObjects) in Java, replacing the Objective-C version. When OS X launched, Java was one of three first-class development environments (ObjC/Cocoa and C/Carbon being the other two), including a set of Cocoa bindings for better integration with the host environment. It had a few tricks that weren't present in other JVMs at the time, such as the ability to have only one copy of the standard classes in memory even if you had multiple Java applications running. This code was eventually contributed upstream by Apple and is now present in the official JRE.

      The Cocoa/Java ('Mocha') bindings were eventually deprecated because no one was using them.

      IIRC the earlier iPhones had JVMs in hardware

      The original iPhone had an ARM11 core with Jazelle, but even that doesn't mean 'JVM in hardware' that they had to'spend development effort to block'. It means that it had hardware that executed a subset of Java bytecodes directly and trapped to a VM for the rest. To support it they would have had to:

      • Pay a license to ARM and Sun for every iPhone (the Jazelle stuff is disabled by default and must be licensed separately
      • Port the Jazelle VM to iOS.

      They spent effort in not doing this in the same way that I spent effort in not porting Java to BeOS.

      The later iPhones have a Cortex A8 processor. The Jazelle mode in all of these chips does not exist. If you try to enter Jazelle mode, you get an error and return to ARM or Thumb mode. Thumb-2EE mode is supported, but that's just a few small extensions to Thumb-2 mode to make it a slightly more useful target for JIT compilers for Java-like languages. If they had originally supported Java, then they would have needed to spend more time and money porting a different VM to iOS for the newer devices and a lot more time testing that the pure software VM worked the same way as the hardware one.

      Oh, and on devices with more than about 32MB of RAM, the hotspot JIT actually runs faster than the Jazelle VM, so using Jazelle on the iPhone would have been entirely pointless.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re:Missing from summary by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would they? If you are going to use Java you use Swing or AWT or SWT. Using Apple-specific bindings makes zero sense if you are going to use Java (kinda defeats the purpose of "write once, run anywhere" which actually does work if you know what you are doing).

      And that's how you end up with crap applications. Good cross-platform applications are MVC with a different UI for each platform. Even the Swing documentation agrees with this, and recommends that you use a native look and feel. If you've got a Java application then you could add a Mac GUI that would use native widgets and behaviours everywhere (you could even get your Mac UI specialist to draw it in Interface Builder), but still reuse the same model code that you used on other platforms.

      Two things: first, plenty of people still have devices with less than 32 MB of RAM and this was certainly the case when early devices are used

      Irrelevant. No one has an iPhone with under 32MB of RAM. The existence of devices under 32MB has no baring on the

      Secondly, Apple in its egocentricity decided to support neither

      They also chose not to port Mono. Or any other VM environments. They let you run binaries (although they did restrict this in the developer license for a while), so as long as your language of choice can generate ARM assembly it will run. The egocentricity seems to be more on your part, deciding that Apple needs to pay to have the runtime for your favourite language ported to their platform.

      Universal cross-platform was slowly becoming a reality but thanks to Apple (iOS) and Microsoft (XBox) they are trying to silo again. For *users* is a step backwards, not forwards

      No, for users cross-platform applications that had a non-native look and feel were a step backwards. Java applications on OS X often can't even get text boxes right - the shortcut keys for navigating in a text field are different to every other application that the user uses on the platform - and things like menu layouts are also unconventional. How is that good for the user? Users benefit from good ports, not from half-arsed recompile-and-ship jobs. Or, in the case of Java, skipping even the recompile step.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Apple Culture by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hope the recent rash of Malware for the Mac will serve to change the culture of security at Apple. They have a lot of really good technology in that regard and many very good coders who work with security as a priority (they have a lot of oldschool UNIX guys these days). The problem is, it is not a priority for Apple or part of their culture. Some Apple software ships with what looks like no security review at all and no real consideration, while other software clearly was architected with that as a design goal.

    They have some very nice sandboxing, but they don't apply it very widely within OS X, even when there is no pain to the user or developer. It is like they just don't want to spend money and resources on that sort of hardening. You send a security hole to Apple and sometimes you hear back the next day and it is fixed in short order. Other times you hear nothing or malware is known and spreading for weeks before Apple bothers to issue a filtering signature.

    Hey Apple! Wake up and smell the coffee. Dump some of your cash reserves into expanding work in security and having some experts paying attention and getting things done. "Think Different" about security and listen to the people you already have that have created groundbreaking security systems elsewhere.

    1. Re:Apple Culture by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? Why would Apple want to do this, aside from some insane take over the world theory? They are certainly pushing for signed applications running in nice sandboxes and they're using the Mac store as one way to do it, but why would they want to disable other applications entirely?

      To charge their customary 30% for every Mac OS X application?

      I don't think Apple is using malware to push for the walled garden (It's bad PR, it's more likely to push people away from the OS entirely. They'd much rather continue their "You don't have to worry about viruses with our super-secure OS!" marketing approach. That said, I do believe they'd love to have Mac OS X as controlled as iOS, if they could figure out how to get away with it.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  4. Re:Contradiction by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Market share by devleopard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is inevitable, and will continue. OSX have gone from 2% to an estimated 14% market share since 2003

    Android has something like a 47% share in the smartphone space.. and there's a report of malware weekly.

    I think it's fair to say that it's easier to find a hole (ugh, here comes the 12 year-old humor) than to imagine all the ways people might come up with. You simply need a large enough target to make it worth their while.

    --
    The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
    1. Re:Market share by ModernGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mac OS 9 had a smaller install base than current Mac OS X and was constantly riddled with viruses. I don't think that market share alone determines whether or not something ends up riddled with viruses. That being said, Apple has been particularity lax about security these last three years.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
  6. Rubbish names. by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kaspersky refers to it as 'Backdoor.OSX.SabPub.a' while Sophos calls it at 'SX/Sabpab-A.'

    Those names are very un-Apple. How about just 'iTrojan'.

    Or, to avoid confusion with the previous trojan...

    'The New iTrojan.'

    --
    "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
  7. My semi-regular Mac accounts post by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mac users need to stop running their day-to-day stuff under Administrator accounts. Create a new account (if your account is "joe", call this new one "joe_admin"); give it admin permissions; make sure you can log in with it; then (and ONLY then!) remove the admin permissions from your personal account. And then... keep using the same account you've always been using.

    On those rare occasions you need to use admin permissions - such as when you are installing software - you'll be prompted to authenticate as an admin, just like you already are. The only difference is you'll need to type that new admin account's ("joe_admin") into the authentication window rather than use your own account. It's brain-dead simple.

    The reason for this (in case you're saying "but the Mac already warns you to authenticate, why bother?") is, when your account is an admin account, you're in the "admin" group (duh). The "admin" group has write permissions into the /Applications and /Library folders. All a bad guy needs to do to get around those authentication warnings is to invoke a bash script (or Applescript or whatever) that makes the necessary changes outside of the GUI.

    If you're not running as an admin, a malicious script can still theoretically mess with your personal files and folders; but not the system-level ones.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:My semi-regular Mac accounts post by mjwx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mac users need to stop running their day-to-day stuff under Administrator accounts. Create a new account (if your account is "joe", call this new one "joe_admin"); give it admin permissions; make sure you can log in with it; then (and ONLY then!) remove the admin permissions from your personal account. And then... keep using the same account you've always been using.

      Mac Users put things like this in the "too hard" basket, Macs are simple, easy to use and Automagically Secure(TM) and how dare you suggest they do something as complex and take responsibility for themselves. Who do you think they are, Windows users.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  8. Use Chrome and "Click to play" for plugins by oberhaus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This attack is done by taking advantage of an exploit in the Java plugin. There are also lots of exploits in Flash (unless they have all been found and fixed...) You should try using Chrome and Click to Play: https://plus.google.com/118187272963262049674/posts/Mmgbr3BcYWb

  9. Just be sure not to panic & delete the wrong f by Kenja · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?"
  10. Fix Available by Frankie70 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fix available here.

    1. Re:Fix Available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      pfft, out of the frying pan, into the blazing inferno of thrown chairs.

      Better fix here.

    2. Re:Fix Available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good point, a Mac user is already used to not being able to use any of the software his friends do.