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.'"
So, what you're saying is, It Just Works?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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?"
Fix available here.