Slashdot Mirror
A Week After Apple's Fix, Flashback Still Infects Half a Million Macs
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Security firm Dr. Web released new statistics Friday showing that the process of eliminating Flashback from Macs is proceeding far slower than expected: On Friday the security firm, which first spotted the Mac botnet earlier this month, released new data showing that 610,000 active infected machines were counted Wednesday and 566,000 were counted Thursday. That's a slim decrease from the peak of 650,000 to 700,000 machines infected with the malware when Apple released its cleanup tool for the trojan late last week. Earlier in the week, Symantec reported that only 140,000 machines remained infected, but admitted Friday that an error in its measurement caused it to underestimate the remaining infections, and it now agrees with Dr. Web's much more pessimistic numbers."
post?
Apple users are even dumber than first thought. Ha.
All half a million of those idiots are running jailbroken versions of OS X on their hackintosh netbooks and thus they cant do a magic auto-update. Psh.
I had wondered how in the hell it got that low that fast--a couple of days after Symantec reported 140,000, they or someone else reported 30,000. But checking the Java vulnerability against versions installed with Mac OS X, it seems that 10.4 and 10.5 should also be vulnerable, while Apple only patched for 10.6 and 10.7. That alone should prevent the numbers dropping so far so fast. Sigh. Smooth move Apple.
I had no idea, that's almost 500 per coffee shop!
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
10.5 makes up 16.5% of Mac users, sure a lot are on PPC and the Flashback isn't targeting it, or is it?
Also about 4-5% are still on 10.4%
Apple didn't issue Diginotar Root certs fixes for these older OS X version neither.
Come when 10.8 is released, a whopping 65% of Mac users on 10.4-10.6 will be ripe for the pickings
Because Apple only updates the last two OS X versions in circulation, then is now releasing a new OS X version every year.
Microsoft on the other hand issues updates for their OS for 10 years?
Mac's a better value? Less prone to malware? Not for too much longer...
According to wikipedia, Flashback uses web redirects and javascript to automatically load a Java applet that contains the vulnerability.
In my book, it's only a Trojan if a real person is duped into executing it, and IMHO an infected legitimate website redirecting someone to a malicious website that automatically runs something that infects the user's computer does not count as duping a person into executing something.
TL;DR: Flashback is not a trojan. We need a new term for this type of threat.
10.5 makes up 16.5% of Mac users, sure a lot are on PPC and the Flashback isn't targeting it, or is it?
Also about 4-5% are still on 10.4%
Apple didn't issue Diginotar Root certs fixes for these older OS X version neither.
Come when 10.8 is released, a whopping 65% of Mac users on 10.4-10.6 will be ripe for the pickings
Because Apple only updates the last two OS X versions in circulation, then is now releasing a new OS X version every year.
Microsoft on the other hand issues updates for their OS for 10 years?
Mac's a better value? Less prone to malware? Not for too much longer...
... and yet I find it hilarious when I read all the angry rants on wired.com and here on how poor old XP is going to lose support in 2 years a mere 13.5 years after launch.
This dwells into the more serious issue of the security nightmare that will come when all internet enabled computers that are more used like XP become abandonded. Personally I think it would be a good idea to disable port 80 on all devices 3 months after support ends to keep the upcoming security nightmare. It will anger many users but many malware writters will target XP if MacOSX has so many infections yet remains so small marketshare wise still. We do not allow vehicles with rags for a gas cap to go on the road right?
I understand Apple losses money to support users but something should be done. If not after a few billion lost dollars in bank accounts will create some nasty lawsuits.
http://saveie6.com/
fuck off russian mob scumbags
> ... and yet I find it hilarious when I read all the angry rants on wired.com and here on how poor old XP is going to lose support in 2 years a mere 13.5 years after launch.
When is the last time a new PC was sold with some version of XP installed by the hardware vendor?
THAT is your starting point for "support", not when the first version was originally released.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'm starting to feel left out here.
I believe there were still netbooks selling with it at the beginning of last year.
I understand Apple losses money to support users but something should be done. If not after a few billion lost dollars in bank accounts will create some nasty lawsuits.
Apple has been getting more serious about security for awhile (in comparison to, "we're unix, we're ok"). Sandbox, gatekeeper, removal of automatic execution, malware removal tool, etc. They need to gt a LOT better in how they respond though.
Apple clearly understands support in general though. They routinely get excellent marks on their support. See the genius bars as an example. I personally have had out of warranty macs repaired for free. My sister had an out of warranty Macbook case top replaced when it chipped. And so forth. Support is one of the big reasons to buy an Apple, imho.
I have more sympathy for those who blew $2,000 for an iMac only to be dumped in 3 years vs those in 2009 got a $199 netbook special with XP. 4 to 5 years support for these low end users sounds reasonable. Apple dropped them like a hot potato. Jobs even broke his own promise of supporting powerPC users for 5 more years.
So many corporate users and those who took our advice not to use Vista, and that XP was GOD wont leave. It is like XP became the pinnacle and gold standard in cannon on what the PC is for these people.
Of course it would help if companies like Cisco actually supported newer browsers besides IE 6 and 7. It forces these companies in. 20 million by 2014 will still be on XP or more vs just 500k with old macs will be a big challenge and will get nasty. I think this is a taste of what is to come.
If I were an evil credit card hacker I would write the ultimate new code red and wait until 1 day after MS ends all support and then have a field day getting rich. MS wont do anything about it until I have a few billion in stolen money. Like a license, unsupported machines should not be on the world wide web and need to be disabled. XP users will come out with pitchforks and flaming torches with an army of lawyers sadly.
http://saveie6.com/
I haven't seen any in years. The ones I see come with Windows 7 starter edition. I did work at a PC shop as early as the summer of 2010 where all we sold were used machines upgraded with more ram that have XP on them. Windows 7 was still new and cool at the time for those with huge 4 gigs of ram but those days are over.
http://saveie6.com/
My issue is Macs are expensive and therefore mac users do not upgrade as often. The old Mac argument was that a PC would go obsolete in 3 years while mac users will use their machines for 7 years or more and still get support.
MacOSX does not get updates if you are just a few years old. Many people buy used macbooks because of the price and are getting let out. Many do not even know they are not supported.
I hope you are right about Apple. They should at least let their users know to upgrade for the latest security threats ... assuming you can if you are first generation intel owners or powerpc.
http://saveie6.com/
Hackers now attack the mac because it's a) easier and b) the user are more likely have something worth stealing (aka dumber users)
Apple can't even issue a patch fix without fucking it up
a wopping market share of 11% eh? LOL.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
You can sell your Mac for 75% of the price you paid for it a year later, and get the newest one
The article is here.
I think many people who assume they are invulnerable and have older macs probably have no clue they are even infected. I am curious what the percentage of older MacOSX installations are? Not everyone can afford or want to buy an expensive iMac/Powerbook every 3 years.
http://saveie6.com/
Windows and even IE has been getting harder and harder to crack in after the laughing bad issue with XP pre SP1 and IE 6. Windows 7 has ASLR, DEP with all services, special VC2010 exception checking at runtime executable support, and sanboxing. Windows 8 and IE 10 have 2 sandboxes to get an exploit pass.
Ask any enterprise who migrated from XP to Windows 7 and they all say a drop in malware and virus infections is the first thing they notice.
Maybe MacOSX is an easier target?
The fact that most MacOSX users do not run anti virus software is also troubling. I say its essential now as a good one will look at behaviors and sandbox critical files and processes. Avast has a beta for MacOSX already if you hate Norton.
http://saveie6.com/
To be fair, Apple users may have more important things to do than install hotfixes. For example, engaging in a love that dare not speak its name can be very time-consuming.
I've heard...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I for one welcome our Mac brethren to the world of Real Computing, where your device will get infected if you don't have any anti-virus protection, and will still get infected even if you do have anti-virus protection if you're ignorant.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
I find this to be a draconian measure. Their computer may still work perfectly fine but then it gets disabled because some big company decided to. Are you going to give them a free upgrade to Windows 7 (that may not work as well on their machine)?
What about users that can support themselves? I know there are still Windows 95, 98 and Me users out there that do and they're doing a pretty good job.
PPC macs have not been sold since 2006. They are no longer supported (we still run 2 power pc macs running 10.4 at work, fwiw, running legacy applications). They were supported through the end of 10.5 (early 2011). 5+ years.
OSX 10.6 and 10.7 are being actively updated. I hate 10.7 and have stuck with 10.6.
First generation Intel Macs were released running 10.4. First generation Intel macs can run OSX 10.7, so they are still supported. They will no longer be supported with 10.8. ~6 years.
Apple seems to roughly support hardware for at least 5 years (given that we've gone through a PPC->Intel transition AND a 32-bit to 64-bit transition in the last ~7 years, not too shabby). I hope they will keep updating 10.6 now that they are hurrying up their OS release schedules.
Ask any enterprise who migrated from XP to Windows 7 and they all say a drop in malware and virus infections is the first thing they notice.
Flash drive Autorun viruses!
By default XP SP1 and newer (IIRC) while not automatically running autorun.inf files from flash drives, will give you the "What do you want to do" prompt including the autorun option. If you decline that, but double click the drive in my computer it will go ahead and run the autorun with no warning or indication. The default action on Windows 7 is to not even try to run autorun from flash drives.
On any computer I have control over (personal or for work) I completely disable autorun because:
a) It's annoying
b) It's dangerous.
Two large corporations I've worked for recently (still using XP) did not disable autorun! It's amazing how much autorun malware runs rampant. Crappy overpriced Symantec or McAfee don't pick them up either. I alert people when I stick their flash drive in my computer and notice hidden autorun.inf files, and hidden mischievous folders with random file names. I usually get stunned looks from them.
I also get stunned looks from IT when I point out the gaping, tractor-trailer sized hole in their security.
Today at Woot Sellout section, they're offering 1.8ghz Dell desktops with WinXP for around $125. Two gig of RAM, too!
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not discrediting these guys and I'm honestly curious: How to they arrive at these numbers? How does one determine if a computer is infected without access to said computer?
Do they port scan 1000 random machines and extrapolate from there? I'm genuinely curious to know their methods. How could they arrive at such a precise number? Surely they must only have a sample of macs and use statistical models to extrapolate, right? They can't scan all the macs, right? right?
How do they do it?!?!
-Glitch "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." - Linus Torvalds
I always come to slashdot first, as an only marginally tech proficient individual. This has always been great when I owned a PC, however, it's useless now that the household went mac. All I see are the same crappy responses. Something about it "just working". Something about the cost of a mac versus PC. Something about mac users being smug. Something about mac users not being smart enough to worry about virus because "mac's don't get them." A screed about closed garden, with a side of open source politics thrown in.
I really do wish that the articles on Apple could actually be useful and we could discuss, if this is hitting computers that were patched, or not. How do you check your computer, with links to whatever that site was that gave a step by step. Whether or not Apple's fix's are actually fixing, or if us Mac folks should look for a third party solution. That kind of information is always abounding on other articles, why not here?
Personally I think it would be a good idea to disable port 80 on all devices 3 months after support ends to keep the upcoming security nightmare. It will anger many users but many malware writters will target XP if MacOSX has so many infections yet remains so small marketshare wise still. We do not allow vehicles with rags for a gas cap to go on the road right?
Just out of curiosity, what was your opinion when Sony removed Boot Other OS from the PS3? "It's their right to patch systems if you want to keep using their servers" or "they're removing a valued feature without asking the users, this is fraud and theft!"
What's scary is the number of NEW embedded systems like Point Of Sale, ATM, and factory control systems that are still shipping with Windows XP. There are still a bunch of software vendors that STILL have not updated their software to work with Windows 7.... and Windows 8 is right around the corner.
Hey genius, the "hidden mischievous files" are probably from other operating systems, GNOME always puts a bunch of hidden files on removable drivers as does OS X. Maybe you should get a clue.
...would hire those two dudes from the "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" commercial for a reunion commercial. I'm sure Apple would sue, though, because Apple only has a sense of humor when they are making fun of other people.
I have more sympathy for those who blew $2,000 for an iMac only to be dumped in 3 years
I'm not clear on how those iMac users were dumped. The upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard was only $29.95. The upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion was priced the same and I expect Mountain Lion will be too. The PPC crowd will have a different experience, but that production ended about six years ago when the architecture changed. The path from Windows 95 to NT, 2000, XP, Vista and then Windows 7 cost significantly more and it required new hardware along the path as well. Microsoft does go to extraordinary length to support antique software because of user demand, but Apple has the edge on upgrade pricing. It doesn't quite make up for the extra hardware cost, but the OS is priced reasonably.
Of course it would help if companies like Cisco actually supported newer browsers besides IE 6 and 7
Hmm, I work with Cisco gear daily and rarely use a GUI, but when I do, I do it from IE 9, Firefox, Safari, Chrome... Sure, there's a compatibility warning, but it's just another click to get past it. The one device that I had issues with was the CE500, but a newer IOS fixed that and it wasn't a browser limitation anyway.
Pull my finger for my public key.
First generation Intel Macs are not supported on 10.7.
nooo, leave apple alone !
i guess its time to bite the dust
they got what they deserved
Whys he been modded down... hes right. First generation Intel Macs ran the core duo - a 32bit processor. Lion requires 64bit (Core2 and up)
...when Apple could write statements like this:
As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.
http://www.apple.com/support/windowsvirus/
I'm RELIEVED to know that new systems are using XP. I can't tell you how many systems I run across still running 2000. Make me think, though, that since the Armageddon predicted over the deprecation of 2000 never materialized, perhaps we'll dodge the bullet with XP, as well.
Nonsense. As a PC Vendor that would mean I can obtain an OEM license for XP in the year 2000 .. sit on my ass and sell a computer in 2012, and somehow MS is on the hook for support starting from 2012? What kind of jackass are you? I suppose.. the anti-ms troll kind.
THAT is your starting point for "support", not when the first version was originally released.
Says who? MS does not sell computers. Blame the computer manufacturer. Microsoft always details when their support is running out ages before it actually does.
Except that is not how the MS support lifecycle currently works unfortunately. It guarantees mainstream support for 5 years after this version's release, or 2 years after the next version's release, whatever is later. In other words, the only reason XP is getting more than 10 years of support is the Longhorn delays (I still remember when mainstream support for it was to end in December 31, 2006!).
AFAIK Stuxnet was developed before Win2000 ended support and was discovered just after, which means it did target Win2K, but patches for the vulns Stuxnet targeted are not available for Win2k without a CSA. This is a targeted attack though.
Are you the most interesting admin in the world?
If you bought your Mac three years ago and never bought an OS upgrade, you are likely running Leopard.
Apple has still not provided any fix or upgrade that addresses this malware for Leopard. Only for Snow Leopard and Lion.
)9TSS
You could stash one today and (try to) sell it 10 years down the line. But why would it obligate, whether legally or morally, Microsoft to support it?
What can be reasonably counted is the date of the last sale of an OEM license from Microsoft to any hardware manufacturer or reseller. According to Wikipedia, OEM XP was available until October 22, 2010 - and then only for netbooks; for other PCs, no OEM licenses were sold after June 30, 2008.
The relevant period here would be extended support rather than mainstream, since extended support still includes security fixes. And extended support lasts either 5 more years after mainstream support ends, or 2 years after the second next version is released, whichever is longer.
So, basically, you'll keep getting security fixes for the product for at least 10 years.
Microsoft can't take money from corporations with their contracts if they're not going to provide longer support. Microsoft also charges hundreds for its OS. Apple charges like £20.99. There is no good reason not to be on a 5 year old operating system unless you're a PPC user and then it's just tough luck because you're on dead hardware.
Today at Woot Sellout section, they're offering 1.8ghz Dell desktops with WinXP for around $125. Two gig of RAM, too!
OEM licenses for XP are not legal to be sold after June 2008. If Woot is selling you software that is 4 years out of date, your beef is with Woot not Microsoft.
There was a further extension for starter edition for netbooks and developing markets to June 2010, but that is not the machine you are describing.
No, they're not. While OSX will put files like .DS_Store on flash drives, those aren't the files I'm talking about. I'm talking about files pointed to in the autorun.inf. Half the time they're hidden in a "Recycler" folder. Recycle bin doesn't exist on removable drives. Files that while overpriced McAfee and Symantec don't pick them up, submitting them to virustotal comes back with some hits.
I have no issue at all with XP in these circumstances. They just should not be used on the internet and internet explorer needs to be disabled on them. A threat to the net and user is key if these machines are ever connected. Lets also think of us who want a better web with css 3 and html 5 with no flash. Developers cant use it asIE 7 & 8 support from these dinosaurs are needed.
http://saveie6.com/
Are you the most interesting admin in the world?
I must be; the people in my head talk about me all the time.
I'd welcome discussion of the assertion that users were dumped. They're free to upgrade or select a new OS at any time as long as the hardware is viable. Sometimes hardware reaches the end of life because technology advances in a new direction. It happened for MS/PC/DR-DOS, OS/2, BSD, games, etc. As for the Cisco comment, it isn't entirely accurate. Cisco has a preferred browser, but you're certainly not required to use their choice any more than you have to use the OS that was distributed with your PC.
Pull my finger for my public key.
Not quite true.
I'm running Lion on a MacPro 1,1 (1st gen, early 2007) right now. It works quite well! It will not be supported for 10.8, but that's because of the video card (stupid to not support an X1900XT).
So, I should have tempered my statement by saying that some 1st gen macs remain supported for Lion, and, afaik, all macs sold after January 2007 are still supported for Lion.
They're probably used off-lease corporate machines, given the processor speed and price. There are lots of places that'll sell you an old Dell/HP/Lenovo/whatever P4 or early Core system for $100 - $150 or so with an XP license.
If you hate Apple so much, code some worms and viruses for it. Apple will shit!
They're probably used off-lease corporate machines, given the processor speed and price. There are lots of places that'll sell you an old Dell/HP/Lenovo/whatever P4 or early Core system for $100 - $150 or so with an XP license.
I suspected too, but couldn't figure out why that was an argument in discussion about Microsoft end-of-life timing of XP. If you count sale of used machines as starting point for counting down, nobody could end-of-life anything ever. If you don't, it is more than 4 years since Microsoft sold the last new normal XP license, and 2 years since the last starter edition.
Only a few days after, and today it is printed that Apple is 10 years behind Microsoft in security.
Hey Apple fan brats, you're idiots!
Please please mod me troll - I love it when you guys make that pig squealing sound.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.