First iOS Malware Discovered In Apple's App Store

First *malware* perhaps by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-05 06:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

...but years ago there was a tethering app disguised as a flashlight app so it's been possible for a long time.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:First *malware* perhaps by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-05 06:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

With users relying entirely on the app store's curation process for security and a relatively low interest from the computer security community on the platform, I'd bet there are a lot of apps doing shady stuff with iOS users' personal data right now.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:First *malware* perhaps by jittles · 2012-07-05 06:27 · Score: 4, Informative

I don't believe this is the first instance of iOS malware at all. Its the first time they have found it. And they only found it because the app author was stupid. There are probably tons of iOS apps that steal all of your contact info, you just have no way of knowing about it. I am pretty sure such apps have been acknowledged by apple in the past, and subsequently removed from the app store.
Re:First *malware* perhaps by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-05 06:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Addendum: Looks like I'm right:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2959773&cid=40554831

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:First *malware* perhaps by mystikkman · 2012-07-05 06:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

...but years ago there was a tethering app disguised as a flashlight app so it's been possible for a long time.
A tethering app is malware... but only according to Apple.
For their users, it's an extremely useful piece of software.
Re:First *malware* perhaps by Em+Adespoton · 2012-07-05 06:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

This isn't even the first time they've found it... functionally, the app does nothing that the Facebook app doesn't do, except for forge your SMS credentials. I doubt Apple's going to be pulling the Facebook integration from iOS 6 though....
Re:First *malware* perhaps by kelemvor4 · 2012-07-05 07:58 · Score: 3, Funny

Addendum: Looks like I'm right:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2959773&cid=40554831
You misunderstand. Apple tells users that this sharing of data is a feature, so it's not malware.
Re:First *malware* perhaps by kesuki · 2012-07-05 08:50 · Score: 1

a tethering app is malware to verizon too, since you need to pay to use the official tethering solution. which is called mobile hotspot.

--
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Re:First *malware* perhaps by oztiks · 2012-07-05 09:45 · Score: 1

3rd there was also a sega app ages ago that was stealing voucher and cc funds.
Re:First *malware* perhaps by PaKL · 2012-07-05 11:40 · Score: 2

At least Android tells me what an application tries to do, so I decide not to install it.
And this is why I bought Permissions Pro. It enables me to lock permissions for programs that read "phone state" ect. And interestingly my battery consumption is much better for it, 1 day 20 hours with 48% remaining on my Galaxy S2.
Re:First *malware* perhaps by CastrTroy · 2012-07-05 13:23 · Score: 1

What do they do with Android phones? They have tethering built into the OS. I guess that they could disable it on their firmware, but it's trivally easy to root most Android phones and install whatever you want. You could also by an unlocked phone. I don't suppose Verizon forces you to buy a handset from them.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:First *malware* perhaps by geekmux · 2012-07-05 20:54 · Score: 1

With users relying entirely on the app store's curation process for security and a relatively low interest from the computer security community on the platform, I'd bet there are a lot of apps doing shady stuff with iOS users' personal data right now.
While this may be true, this absolutely does not excuse Apple's actions (or lack thereof) to properly scrutinize apps in their own store.
Sorry, but when I read the words "steals your contact data and uploads it to a remote server before sending spam SMS messages", I have little reason to excuse someone at Apple for not using something as simple as a fucking network analyzer to discover this way before it went public. They are certainly in no mad rush to approve submissions.
Re:First *malware* perhaps by Grudge2012 · 2012-07-05 23:02 · Score: 1

What do they do with Android phones? They have tethering built into the OS.

As does iOS.
Re:First *malware* perhaps by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-06 00:06 · Score: 1

Oh please, Android has had built-in controls for application data access better than iOS6's for ages, and with the ability to sideload you don't have to mod the phone significantly to add security tools to it, of which there are many. And of course without the need to register with the manufacturer and pay a $100 yearly subscription to distribute apps to up to 100 of your friends (no limit on Android), there will be more malware. Crushing authoritarianism reduces crime, I won't argue with that.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:First *malware* perhaps by homeitserviceguy · 2012-07-06 16:37 · Score: 1

Bwa ha ha ha ha thanks Apple

Are you sure? by Minwee · 2012-07-05 06:21 · Score: 5, Funny

The app steals your contact data and uploads it to a remote server

So it's just iCloud?

Re:Are you sure? by evilRhino · 2012-07-05 08:29 · Score: 3, Informative

Didn't the iOS LinkeIn App get caught doing similar over a month ago? http://blog.skycure.com/2012/06/linkedout-linkedin-privacy-issue.html

sucks to be the 5 people to use this app by alen · 2012-07-05 06:21 · Score: 4, Funny

i might download it just to give it some ranking in the top free apps

otherwise it will be lost in the ocean of apps

Re:sucks to be the 5 people to use this app by Em+Adespoton · 2012-07-05 06:50 · Score: 1

The App's in Russian -- there's likely very few users (other than security researchers) outside of iTunes Russia who've downloaded it (until now).

Trouble in paradise by DigiShaman · 2012-07-05 06:21 · Score: 2, Funny

The garden walls have been breached! Oh noes!

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:Trouble in paradise by jellomizer · 2012-07-05 06:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well it was sneaky the way it got threw. In general what the App does in its description required it to pull all this data off your phone. Then it needed to send the data to the cloud to match the correct name to get their phone number. Thus, it seemed to do what it says with a normal code review.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Trouble in paradise by camperslo · 2012-07-05 07:14 · Score: 1

The garden walls have been breached! Oh noes!
Don't worry, a fleet of drones disguised as Angry Birds are closing in on the miscreant developer. Perhaps you'd like to buy an app that controls them?
Re:Trouble in paradise by Mister+Whirly · 2012-07-05 08:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh, so becasue Android phones get infected too than that means we can all just pretend iPhones can't be. Brilliant! Thanks Anonymous Coward now I can go back about my business and stop all this ceaseless worrying!

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:Trouble in paradise by oztiks · 2012-07-05 09:53 · Score: 1

Perhaps, but the time it takes to read this article someone from google / OSS community will actually fix the problem.
Meanwhile, Apple first has to deny there is a problem, wait until people / media outlets nag them about the problem, then they'll attempt to release a fix that doesn't work, eventually tying it into an os release which requires the users to redownload iTunes, QuickTime and a iOS image that only a small number of the Apple market bother doing.
Re:Trouble in paradise by GNious · 2012-07-05 19:06 · Score: 1

That could be the coolest app - one that, for a short while, controls attack-drones during raids. You can then say you helped attack some al-kaida tourist camp, and only for 15.99 for 6 minutes of drone-control!
Re:Trouble in paradise by camperslo · 2012-07-06 06:55 · Score: 1

A few people might even go for an app to control / patrol U.S. borders. It'd be an unusual way to avoid paying some salaries. Best not to give them missiles though!
Who knows, maybe even the Incredible Hulk would go for that. I was a little surprised when I saw that he (the actor) signed up as a reserve deputy on the central California coast. The article noted he was also one in Santa Monica near Los Angeles. Then a peek at the wikipedia showed this:
"In November 2010, Ferrigno was sworn in as a member of a Maricopa County, Arizona volunteer sheriff posse, which also includes actors Steven Seagal and Peter Lupus, in order to help control illegal immigration in the Phoenix Valley area."
California has had The Terminator as governor, so nothing would be too surprising.
(Reagan, also a former actor was once governor of CA too, instantly created large numbers of homeless by emptying the mental hospitals, including many Vietnam vets - sounds like a plot for a zombie game app)
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2012/06/15/2106806/lou-ferrigno-hulk-sheriffs-deputy.html#storylink=omni_popular
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Ferrigno
The local tv station ought to bring back some reruns of the Hulk.

No doubt... by Shoten · 2012-07-05 06:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Some will say that the Apple App Store is "no longer secure." This is ridiculous. It took 5 years for the first malware to show up...that's pretty damned good. Nothing is impermeable, after all. But the real value is that the malware can easily be removed...and its source eradicated. So it's not only about keeping malware out via the App Store, but also in having a swift and flexible response option for just this sort of occasion. Good security fails gracefully and a good defense in depth allows for easy recovery, and it looks to me like Apple meets those criteria.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.

Re:No doubt... by unlucky+ducky · 2012-07-05 06:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is the first found and publicly revealed malware, it does not necessarily have to be the first malware on the platform. We have no way of actually knowing whether there's already been other malware in the store before.
Re:No doubt... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 06:37 · Score: 1

iOS would still be more secure if they applied the same options they do for location services to other sensitive functionality. That is let the user enable/disable it for specific apps.
Re:No doubt... by mlts · 2012-07-05 06:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Once malware gets rooted out and Apple slams the banhammer down, it is a lot harder for a shady developer to get around closed accounts than on the Google Marketplace. This by itself keeps the bad guys on notice.
That is the main security mechanism of iOS which keeps the bad stuff at bay: As soon as Apple gets wind of something malicious or violating the rules, it gets tossed out immediately. The same action doesn't get repeated.
Now, once an app does get past the gatekeeper, it has a lot of room to play because only locations and alerts are granted/denied by the user. So, in theory, an app can copy pictures and contacts off, as well as send text messages all it wants. However, if users find something doing this, Apple squashes it.
Since Apple's reputation is on the line for security, the strong gatekeeper has shown that it is more secure than the weak gatekeeper/strong OS security of the Android ecosystem. Google needs to get with it and start having a tier of the Marketplace that requires apps to be actively approved, similar to what Amazon does.
Re:No doubt... by adamstew · 2012-07-05 06:54 · Score: 1

They are starting to do this with iOS 6. I have they beta on my device and anytime an app wants access to your contacts, calendar information, reminders, and/or photos the OS asks the user if it's okay for the app to access such things.
Re:No doubt... by mlts · 2012-07-05 06:57 · Score: 1

Doesn't BlackberryOS do this? Apple really should take a page from that PlayBook and have permissions for apps accessing the phone or text items, contacts, music, and photos. It wouldn't add that much clutter, and it would add a lot of protection.
On the cheap, maybe Apple should see about licensing the Cydia app Protect My Privacy and building that into the OS. That way, if an app does go and access stuff it shouldn't, it will get results, although it will just get a random UDID and garbage in the fields.
Contact list protection would help immensely if an app glitches like Facebook's and starts overwriting or appending contact fields without permission.
Re:No doubt... by sl4shd0rk · 2012-07-05 06:57 · Score: 1

Some will say that the Apple App Store is "no longer secure." This is ridiculous.

Um.. allowing people to install malicious software from a source deemed 'trustable' is actually a pretty big security hole. What's more is now you need to ask the question: "How do we know there aren't more and how can we prove it?".

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Re:No doubt... by amicusNYCL · 2012-07-05 07:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Some will say that the Apple App Store is "no longer secure." This is ridiculous.
Right, it would be more accurate to say that it never really was "secure", it was just heavily audited. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that malicious apps will manage to sneak through the audits from time to time.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:No doubt... by rolfwind · 2012-07-05 07:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Some people tend to have an all-or-nothing nature, especially when it concerns something they go partisan over - like Apple.
I've easily had dozens of arguments over the years where I argued Apple was the more secure solution for the average user, people responded with pwn to own or some such, and if I argued further, they just labeled me as a "fanboi" as if that ended the argument even if I argued the Unix underpinnings. Nevermind that I use W7 and Ubuntu myself, or that it's my own personal experience having to play tech support to an entire tech-challenged family that's both hardworking and lucky enough to afford to have a choice. Sure, I could put them on OpenBSD or HardenedLinux, but the first obstacle they run into, they say "Why can't I do yadayadayada" they'll go and find a way to install Windows on it, which is perfectly fine by itself, and start downloading mouse icons that look like toy trojan horses and what not.
The mindset of Y turns out to not be perfect, so it's on the same level of X, must originate from politics because the whole feel of the debate seems political. It's a retarded mentality to have, akin to cheering for wrestlers and their bogus storylines. It's sad that it has crept into tech so pervasively and that's what the whole last decade felt like on any issue - stupid partisan cheerleading for one side or the other, or booing against one side or another.
The truth of a walled garden is that it's the most practical solution for most consumers, who really don't or can't police what they're doing. I wouldn't want to live in one exclusively, nor would most geeks, but that's why they're geeks, they go above and beyond the artificial constraints and don't need the protection.
Re:No doubt... by gl4ss · 2012-07-05 07:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

it's not nearly the first ios app that sends contact infos off the phone for no particularly good reason.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:No doubt... by h4rr4r · 2012-07-05 07:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

What stops that dev from spending another $99 on another dev account?
Not that hard or expensive to kill your old corporation, start another and get a new AMEX.
Re:No doubt... by mlts · 2012-07-05 07:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

One answer would likely be tiers:
The first tier would be actively approved apps.
Then, if the user so chooses to set foot into Mordor, there can be a tier of apps that are downloadable almost immediately, and pulled if people justifiably report it as malicious.
This type of system has worked on jailbroken phones, where the App store serves one tier, and Cydia serves another. Since it takes a little bit of effort to JB an iPhone, generally someone is clued enough to be able to watch out for Trojans.
What this is protecting against, is arguably the biggest security hole of all; the user. Most smartphone users are not anywhere as savvy as a /. reader. The casual user will see an app that might offer "cool smilies", install it by reflex, and go on their merry way. On iOS, the damage a user can do is limited [1]. On Android, it is fairly easy to find apps that are malicious, and where a competent person would not install a fleshlight app that asks for full phone, GPS, contact, photos, and filesystem access (or even a prompt for a su), an inexperienced user will just click "install" nontheless, then scream that Android is insecure when they get bitten. iOS is designed to keep this from happening. Only beta code, Cydia apps, and enterprise apps are not coming through Apple's gateway. It is almost certain that the worst an iOS app can do is lighten the user's pocketbook due to its cost, or the cost of in-app transactions.
This isn't exactly the "dancing bunnies" security hole, but protecting the ignorant user from themselves is the difference between a platform having a rep as secure versus easily compromised.
I like both worlds. Have some barrier so a user doesn't exit the managed tier without a deliberate decision, then if they choose to, allow them to do what they want. This keeps the novices from footshooting while allowing people with a clue to use their device to the fullest.
[1]: Assuming the user doesn't JB, but generally if someone is clued enough to jailbreak, they will either know what they are doing, or end up having a clued friend DFU restoring their device and not do it again.
Re:No doubt... by CanHasDIY · 2012-07-05 07:30 · Score: 2

They are starting to do this with iOS 6. I have they beta on my device and anytime an app wants access to your contacts, calendar information, reminders, and/or photos the OS asks the user if it's okay for the app to access such things.
In other words... Windows UAC.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:No doubt... by Crudely_Indecent · 2012-07-05 07:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

It took 5 years for the first malware to show up.
Wrong! It took 5 years for the first malware to be identified and publicly acknowledged.
How many more exist secretly, awaiting a clever analyst?

--

"Lame" - Galaxar
Re:No doubt... by stephanruby · 2012-07-05 07:54 · Score: 2

Some will say that the Apple App Store is "no longer secure."
Who cares about the Apple App Store no longer being secure if the iPhone itself lost that claim long ago? You iPhone users are just playing with semantics here. If your iPhone can be compromised by just being directed at a web site (as it did a while ago), it really doesn't matter much if the App Store is secure or not.
Besides, I'm not even sure if the latter claim of the Apple App Store being secure is that true to begin with. Many iTunes users, including some app developers, have had their iTunes account credentials stolen and their account hijacked. In my opinion, that vulnerability at the server-side is just as bad as the previous iOS vulnerability on its client-side, since your iTunes account is pretty much used for everything -- including developer accounts.
And the last time I checked, which granted is over one year ago (so my information is hopefully outdated by now), google users could add 2-factor authentication to their account, but iTunes users still couldn't.
Re:No doubt... by Shoten · 2012-07-05 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

it's not nearly the first ios app that sends contact infos off the phone for no particularly good reason.
Very true...but despite my best efforts to raise awareness, Facebook has yet to be classified as a very large botnet :)

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Re:No doubt... by Post-O-Matron · 2012-07-05 08:14 · Score: 1

The mindset of Y turns out to not be perfect, so it's on the same level of X, must originate from politics because the whole feel of the debate seems political. It's a retarded mentality to have, akin to cheering for wrestlers and their bogus storylines
While I agree with your analogy, the reason for the "Y ISN'T PERFECT! Y ISN'T PERFECT" mentality, is the "Y IS BETTER THAN X! Y IS BETTER THAN X!" mentality on the other side. This is the same cause for it in politics. As the (left|right) claims that their way of doing things is better and then mocks / forces it on the (right|left) responds by showing that the (left|right)'s way actually isn't perfect and then mock it / forces it way.
Re:No doubt... by Post-O-Matron · 2012-07-05 08:16 · Score: 1

OMG did I write this? I swear my English is usually better and I'm not drunk. Just didn't proof read... ><
Re:No doubt... by adamstew · 2012-07-05 08:22 · Score: 2

Kind of. It's a one-time request per App you install. It's more like Facebook's system of a user authorizing a Facebook app to access their data. The first time an App requests a particular type of data, UI from facebook pops up and says "here is what the app is requesting, do you want to allow it?"
The way it works on iOS 6 is similar. The first time an App wants to access a protected type of data from the phone, UI from iOS pops up and asks if it's okay. It happens the first time and once you give permission you don't need to give it again. You can also revoke permission later from the device settings as well.
Re:No doubt... by javaxjb · 2012-07-05 08:27 · Score: 1

Apple also has banned Pulitzer-prize winning artists from their store as well.
A decision that was reversed on its merits as noted here... and now you know the rest of the story.

--
Programmers in mirror are brighter than they appear
Re:No doubt... by icebraining · 2012-07-05 09:33 · Score: 2

So they finally caught up to Symbian? That's nice.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:No doubt... by Barefoot+Monkey · 2012-07-05 09:36 · Score: 3, Funny

...and where a competent person would not install a fleshlight app that asks for...
Freudian slip?
Re:No doubt... by Belial6 · 2012-07-05 09:43 · Score: 1

I would go so far as to say that it took 5 years for the first malware to be acknowledged. When it was identified that Apple was tracking users, most Apple fans went into denial mode. Even when Apples 'apology' letter acknowledged that they were working on an application that depended on the tracking of users. I suppose that you could rationalize that code delivered with the OS can't be considered malware, but that seems to be splitting hairs.
Re:No doubt... by jo_ham · 2012-07-05 11:41 · Score: 1

What stops that dev from spending another $99 on another dev account?
Not that hard or expensive to kill your old corporation, start another and get a new AMEX.
Apple will just write a GUI in Visual Basic and track their IP address.
Re:No doubt... by scot4875 · 2012-07-05 13:07 · Score: 1

You can bet that the Apple review process will be looking hard at similar apps from Russia from now on.
*phew* We can all rest easy now. No more shoebombers will get on these planes. Oh, wait, we're talking about app stores?
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:No doubt... by moronoxyd · 2012-07-05 19:07 · Score: 1

Think again.
"The first Malware found in the App Store". There can be any number of other malware apps in the App Store that just have not been found/ recognized yet.
Re:No doubt... by geekmux · 2012-07-05 21:01 · Score: 1

...Good security fails gracefully and a good defense in depth allows for easy recovery, and it looks to me like Apple meets those criteria.
Unless one finds that something like this could have been perhaps easily avoided by simply hooking up a network analyzer when scrutinizing this app prior to it being made public...
Good policies and procedures after the fact are critical, but it should not excuse or replace basic competence or common sense security practice at step 1.
Re:No doubt... by kTag · 2012-07-05 22:24 · Score: 1

Then, if the user so chooses to set foot into Mordor, there can be a tier of apps that are downloadable almost immediately, and pulled if people justifiably report it as malicious.
That's called jailbreaking.
I didn't see Apple taking a strong stance against this.
They did say it was wrong and bad and talked a lot, but no real action was taken against jailbreaking.
Re:No doubt... by wolverine2k · 2012-07-05 22:57 · Score: 1

Right to the point! The app store is a heavily audited store and not a secure store. And heavy auditing does not really mean tight security.
Re:No doubt... by mlts · 2012-07-06 01:50 · Score: 1

Jailbreaking isn't really official, and it is becoming harder and harder for the Dev Teams to find a usable JB. For example, it took about two months for them to make jailbreakme.com when the iPhone 4 came out, then when the Greenpois0n exploit was found, that pretty much allowed any iPhone 4 (not 4s) to be jailbroken either tethered or semi-tethered. The 4s is a different beast altogether, and the gymnastics required to JB that device took a lot of effort.
It would be nice if Apple offered low level access to their devices, but realistically, it only is going to become longer and longer before a successful JB is achieved on future phones.
Plus, JB-ing isn't just getting something to run as root like on Android. It is installing a complete user environment, moving apps around, and many other workarounds that might change with each OS revision.
Re:No doubt... by homeitserviceguy · 2012-07-06 16:40 · Score: 1

What was the first malware?

App is/was also available for Android by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 06:22 · Score: 5, Informative

So they targeted both groups.

Re:App is/was also available for Android by jo_ham · 2012-07-05 11:44 · Score: 1

This is true, but the summary is somewhat slanted to take an unnecessary pot shot at Android's security, perhaps to "lessen the blow"? Who knows.
The article I read elsewhere was much more informative without the grandstanding.

Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 06:28 · Score: 5, Informative

One of my beefs about iOS is that even though it will ask the user if an app attempts to use the GPS or notification, there are plenty of juicy things that can be obtained and copied elsewhere. Photos are protected against being deleted, but they can be slurped up and copied off without the user knowing. Same with contacts and music.

I'm surprised this was caught. If a person jailbreaks their device and runs PMP (Protect My Privacy) and Firewall IP, they will see a lot of apps digging in places where they shouldn't be, and sending lots of data to sites that have zero relevance to the task at hand. One major news app connects to so many sites without DNS (just via IP addresses) that I ended up just blacklisting all but the few sites it gets news info.

I would say where the rubber meets the road, iOS has been more secure, because Apple guards the gateway and does it well. However, if anything malicious does make it past, it can have a field day.

Re:Not surprising... by samkass · 2012-07-05 06:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, this is fixed in iOS 6. Separate prompts for Location, Contacts, Calendars, Reminders, Photos, and after the fact you can see who requested it, who currently has access, and toggle them.
My only complaint is that the App Store doesn't give you this information before you download the app. Developers should have to declare that they want to access any of these things (and show ads, and have in-app purchases), and the App Store listing should contain the information about what the app is going to want to do before you buy it.

--
E pluribus unum
Re:Not surprising... by Em+Adespoton · 2012-07-05 06:54 · Score: 1

I would say where the rubber meets the road, iOS has been more secure, because Apple guards the gateway and does it well. However, if anything malicious does make it past, it can have a field day.
...for a limited time. Apple pulled the app from the store almost an hour before this hit Slashdot.
As for this being caught... that doesn't take much: all it takes is the first few people complaining about you spamming them via SMS, and the gig is up.
Re:Not surprising... by farble1670 · 2012-07-05 07:32 · Score: 1

My only complaint is that the App Store doesn't give you this information before you download the app.
android has done with since it's inception, both for app store installed and side-loaded apps.
Re:Not surprising... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 07:46 · Score: 1

So there is no problem, malware will get caught.
But wasn't Apple supposed to filter all stuff before it hits the public? This does show errors will be made and malware will be able to get permission from the guardian to be installed.
Re:Not surprising... by trptrp · 2012-07-05 07:47 · Score: 1

yes, that would be the way to go.
But I hate the App Store. I doesn't help you separate the wheat from the chaff.
There are some good apps that don't phone home at all, but the norm is to at least contact hockeyapp or another usage-info-collector.
That's why I use Firewall IP.
Re:Not surprising... by jo_ham · 2012-07-05 11:49 · Score: 1

> fixed in iOS 6. Separate prompts for Location, Contacts, Calendars, Reminders, ...
I know this is flamebait - but hear me out.
There are many Apple fanbois out there effectively saying that Apple is justified in patenting the bleedingly obvious in its attempt to stifle competition and hurt society in general.
Should Google sue Apple's ass off for copying the prompting for confirmation of other information like Android has done for some time now?
I realize that Google is very unlikely to take Apple to court over something so bleedingly obvious - only an asshat of a company would do that...
So what do the Apple fanbois think? You're blind zealots and believe in suing for the most trivial of things... Should Google kick Apple to the curb for copying such a basic feature "on a smart phone" (ie. ignoring precedence in other environments)? Particiuarly given that it hurts the community at large, do you endorse such behaviour when Apple is not at the helm of the law suit?
You start with a false premise; that Apple fans believe that Apple is justified suing over trivial things. I for one think that suing over trivial things is nonsense. I believe Apple had a design patent case against Samsung, but that it was blown out of all proportion. I also think the lawsuits over the screen unlock and other such basic things are frivolous and annoying.
So, if Google were to sue for this I'd take the exact same position as I take for Apple suing over sliding to unlock: it's stupid.

Just maybe... by kiriath · 2012-07-05 06:32 · Score: 1, Funny

Maybe these are the bastards that broke Angry Birds!!!!!!11 =D

Re:This isn't new! by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-05 06:33 · Score: 2

Damn, I knew it was a useless locked-in piece of shit, but I didn't know it was malware! And just today I told a coworker that it was fine to use (apart from the lockin and relative uselessness) on Blackberry.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Details missing? by bhlowe · 2012-07-05 06:33 · Score: 2

Any estimate of the number of people who installed it and ran it? Did it have a useful function that would get people to install it from the 500K other iOS apps? Did the app have any ratings that suggested that it was worth installing? Was the app Russian language only? (English language apps probably get more scrutiny, since the app reviewing is done by Apple in Cupertino...) Did anyone check with PayPal to see if the account has been closed and if refunds are due?

Re:Details missing? by catmistake · 2012-07-05 11:41 · Score: 1

Turn off JavaScript if you're on an iOS device, and take a look at the google cache of the app's iTunes page. It was up on AppStore for a month and didn't even get enough downloads to get any ratings or rankings or reviews... even buried AC slashdot comments get more exposure than this app's AppStore page. I can't figure out what the purpose of the app is nor what the author was attempting to accomplish with this trojan.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:Details missing? by Kalriath · 2012-07-05 16:00 · Score: 1

How is PayPal even slightly relevant? The only PayPal account that would be involved would be Apple's (and I don't see PayPal cutting Apple off) and Apple pays out developers by direct wire transfer into their bank account.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

Inspected by ?? by jdastrup · 2012-07-05 06:35 · Score: 1

Does anyone know how the app approval process works exactly? Is there 1 person or a team responsible for every app submitted? Do they only look at the inputs/outputs and overall UI, or do they look at every line of code? For example, what if I write a game that does something malicious on level 39, beyond what the Apple inspectors will likely reach in playing the game during the review process? And what if Level 39 is not anything malicious on the network, contact, sms, phone level, but just displays something that may be considered malicious or against Apple policy, e.g. pornographic images? Just seems to me that there has got be ways to get past their inspection process if you know what it is, or even by guessing.

Re:Inspected by ?? by kagaku · 2012-07-05 06:40 · Score: 1

You'd likely get that past the inspections, but once discovered it would be quickly removed.
From what I hear, the reviewers do a combination of testing the application (and for anything that has an online/account component, they request a fully functional unrestricted account to test with) and analyzing the application with tools that look for usage of private/restricted frameworks. I'm sure there is more to it, but they're definitely not going line-by-line through the code. When you submit an app to the app store, you're not submitting your source code - you're only submitting a final version of the application binaries.

--
everyday is another shooter.
Re:Inspected by ?? by Em+Adespoton · 2012-07-05 07:02 · Score: 1

The app itself doesn't really do anything malicious -- it snarfs down your address book and grabs your SMS ID -- which are things done by countless other apps. The malicious bit is all done server-side, where the "company" sends promotional SMSes out to everyone in your address book, spoofing your SMS ID. ...and the App was removed within an hour of Apple being made aware of the situation.
Re:Inspected by ?? by TrancePhreak · 2012-07-05 08:45 · Score: 1

They are pretty bad at checking apps, actually. Check out this news article about one guy who got something pretty crazy through.

--

-]Phreak Out[-

I thought apps needed permission to see contacts by mark-t · 2012-07-05 06:39 · Score: 2

I thought Apple had, in a fairly recent iOS update, made it so that an app couldn't just silently query a person's contact data... that the application would need to declare to the OS that it was going to do this, the OS would then check with the user to see if it was okay. If the user hadn't given permission, I thought trying to access the contact data from an app would be futile.

Again, this was just my understanding here... so either this is only an issue with older iOS versions, or else my understanding is completely borked, and I have no idea what I'm talking about.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Why doesn't this count?! by Pulse301 · 2012-07-05 06:43 · Score: 4, Funny

InstaStock was malicious and was available on the app store. Why doesn't it count as the first?

Re:Why doesn't this count?! by realsilly · 2012-07-05 07:28 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/08/apple_excommunicates_charlie_miller/
Here is a link to back up your post.

--
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Re:Why doesn't this count?! by TrancePhreak · 2012-07-05 08:47 · Score: 1

That was also not likely the first. Plenty of apps were caught stealing contact info and such.

--

-]Phreak Out[-

Re:This isn't new! by the_B0fh · 2012-07-05 06:46 · Score: 1

since when does it spam your contacts?

Re:I thought apps needed permission to see contact by Terracotta122 · 2012-07-05 06:50 · Score: 1

This is going to be implemented in iOS6. (Privacy Settings) http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/12/more-ios-6-features-new-privacy-settings-share-widgets-revamped-store-apps-more/

Re:Apple approval process by mr100percent · 2012-07-05 06:53 · Score: 2

865,000 apps approved for the App Store, and yes, one got through. And you think it's nothing more than Apple randomly selecting apps to let in.

From you? by dimer0 · 2012-07-05 06:55 · Score: 2

Was curious how these guys could send text messages to people looking like they came from you (because there's no way for an app to get its hands on your phone number) - but realized from TFA that the user was prompted to enter their mobile phone number into a text box (and no validation was done on that). So, for idiots, it might look like it was coming from you. But there's no F'in way I'm entering my phone number into an app I download from the app store.

Re:From you? by tlhIngan · 2012-07-05 07:37 · Score: 1

Was curious how these guys could send text messages to people looking like they came from you (because there's no way for an app to get its hands on your phone number) - but realized from TFA that the user was prompted to enter their mobile phone number into a text box (and no validation was done on that). So, for idiots, it might look like it was coming from you. But there's no F'in way I'm entering my phone number into an app I download from the app store.
Odd, considering there are APIs to get the phone number already. Especially since well, your phone should know its number already.
I find it interesting though that since the iOS APIs disallow sending SMSes without user confirmation, that they have to be using a third party SMS service. An interesting runaround to the iOS restrictions in that case.
Time for Apple to tell us who the offender was... they have their name and address after all.

Re:Apple approval process by MachDelta · 2012-07-05 06:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

It would be more accurate to say one got caught. There could be others running wild that have slipped the net.

Re:I thought apps needed permission to see contact by adamstew · 2012-07-05 07:00 · Score: 1

They are doing it in iOS 6, which hasn't been released yet. It is in Beta and should be released in the next couple of months.

Gone already by Arkham · 2012-07-05 07:02 · Score: 1

The app is already gone off the App store, at least in the US.

--
- Vincit qui patitur.

Stopping malware by DaMattster · 2012-07-05 07:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

One way to stop the proliferation of malware in these so-called app stores is to not allow the submission of binaries. Force the author to submit source code instead so it can be audited and then have Apple build the binaries. Apple could then put the binary through its paces to see how it behaves. I'm not necessarily advocating this method because there are multiple points for abuse but it is one way to thwart the problem. It would force the would-be malware writers to innovate and adapt and that would not be easily done.

Re:Stopping malware by aardwolf64 · 2012-07-05 07:29 · Score: 1

Apple can easily decompile the binaries. That's how they know if you're using private APIs.
Re:Stopping malware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 08:25 · Score: 1

Force the author to submit source code instead so it can be audited and then have Apple build the binaries. Apple could then put the binary through its paces to see how it behaves.
Umm, without the source code, Apple already has the binaries and can see how they behave.
I'm not necessarily advocating this method because there are multiple points for abuse but it is one way to thwart the problem.
It would be done in a low-paid Asian sweatshop - I don't have much faith in their diligence.

Re:Apple approval process by amicusNYCL · 2012-07-05 07:04 · Score: 1

865,000 apps approved for the App Store, and yes, one got through

that you know of

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black

Copying google again? by thetoadwarrior · 2012-07-05 07:05 · Score: 1

Next thing you know they'll have to get their own botnet for the iphone and it probably won't even be compatible with the android botnet and they'll patent it, obviously.

Meh by WankerWeasel · 2012-07-05 07:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

It was also available in the Google Play store too. With the hundreds of thousands of apps that they have to review, it was bound to happen sooner or later. Plenty of apps grab your address book info including the Facebook app. What it does with them Apple has little control over. Facebook could choose to spam them on their server side and Apple couldn't prevent it (other than no longer allowing apps to access contact info).

its not the first and its not malware but... by zr · 2012-07-05 07:16 · Score: 1

...it drives traffic so why not.

this is buggy beta software. guess what, beta software has bugs, some bugs are worse than others. this one went all the way to eleven.

It can't be the only malware by DrXym · 2012-07-05 07:21 · Score: 1

It's impossible for Apple to review every program or test it to a degree to ensure it's safety. All the bad guys need to do is produce a seemingly useful application which calls home for legitimate purposes, make it work as advertised and the remotely flip switch at some point into malicious mode. The malicious code could be obfuscated. It would be trivial to do and the bad guys would clearly know that too.

iSnitch by srussia · 2012-07-05 07:25 · Score: 1

Is there no "Little Snitch" app out there?

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Re:iSnitch by catmistake · 2012-07-05 12:00 · Score: 1

Is there no "Little Snitch" app out there?
No, but there's no reason you couldn't use your Mac running Little Snitch as a reverse firewall gateway for all your wifi connected iOS devices... connect your Airport to your Mac via ethernet, turn on Internet Sharing and share your Mac's wifi connection to the ISP wireless router to your Ethernet (and the Airport connected to it), and batten down Little Snitches hatches... and turn on the Application firewall, and enable ipfw for good measure... making sure to never say always when the dialogues start popping up... and keep Console.app running watching everything that hits ipfw... your Mac becomes a NOC.

--
The Admin and the Engineer

android well-known for malware? by farble1670 · 2012-07-05 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

While Android is well known for malware,

in theory, and not in practice that is. the *only* thing that makes android more vulnerable is apple's more severe vetting for apps in their store, and the fact that android apps can be "side loaded", or installed from arbitrary sources (other than the google play store). side loaded is disabled by default and must be explicitly enabled by the user after subjecting them to a scary warning dialog.

android security model of fine-grained permissions that are presented to the user before the app is even installed is superior to iOS. what android doesn't do is protect users from their own stupidity. read the permissions. if you choose to go ahead and install that flashlight app that requests permission to the internet and to read your contacts, you'll get what you deserve.

Re:android well-known for malware? by farble1670 · 2012-07-05 08:20 · Score: 1

The fine-grained permissions are informative but nothing more. You either accept them or not install the app. There's no actual control for the user. I really, really hate that.
first, it's better to know before hand so you can avoid the malware getting on your device. one it is installed, who knows that it has done.
second, it would not be practical for an app to be written to gracefully handle the user accepting or denying all possible combinations of permissions. well, maybe that's too strong. at the very least, it'd be a pain in the arse. if you were a developer you'd thank your lucky stars that it works like this.
Re:android well-known for malware? by ThatsMyNick · 2012-07-05 08:48 · Score: 1

There are apps that would do that for you (I use LBE). I agree though, this should available by default.
Re:android well-known for malware? by joh · 2012-07-05 09:18 · Score: 1

it would not be practical for an app to be written to gracefully handle the user accepting or denying all possible combinations of permissions. well, maybe that's too strong. at the very least, it'd be a pain in the arse. if you were a developer you'd thank your lucky stars that it works like this.
I think it would lead to better apps.

Re:TFA does not even have a smoking gun .. by blackest_k · 2012-07-05 07:33 · Score: 1

hmm same day that microsoft announced an android botnet no less. Guess it means if you want to be secure with your mobile phone you need to be using windows mobile 7... or 8 or something.

Or perhaps it's time to dump on the two main mobile o's in an effort to market windows phone.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants

Re:Apple approval process by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-05 07:50 · Score: 1

Serious question: How do they get caught on Android?

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Re:Apple approval process by mlts · 2012-07-05 08:17 · Score: 1

I've caught some apps by looking at the permissions asked for. For example, a game that asks for everything under the sun.

Then, when you look at the reviews, they are short and pithy, or consist of text like "App work[sic] great!".

That is when you know it isn't something you want on your device.

What is ironic is that I've yet to encounter an app that would request root permissions via su that isn't supposed to. I'm pretty sure it is because I refuse to install any app that requests irrelevant permissions, but it is sort of surprising that the baddies have not taken the tack of popping up a su prompt randomly. Maybe because users who root their phones would get very suspicious very fast.

I'm sure users who install it will find out it isn't up to snuff when all their contacts first get barraged by text messages from that device, then spam outlets as the contact data gets imported into the spammer databases.

Re:Not for my iPad 1 by elrous0 · 2012-07-05 08:28 · Score: 1, Funny

You're holding it wrong.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

This isn't malware by Quila · 2012-07-05 08:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

The application is working as advertised, uploading data as allowed by the user.

The problem is that the company is not trustworthy for what it does with that data. This can be any company: Do you trust Google, Yelp or Facebook with your data? This is the decision you have to make with any app on any platform. Pretty much the only way around this would be for Apple to require privacy and data use policies with minimum protections for all developers, and then require them to be bonded against a misuse contrary to that policy.

Re:TFA does not even have a smoking gun .. by kesuki · 2012-07-05 08:46 · Score: 1

the problem here is simple, bots do a lot of things for us. people using closed source have no idea that they can not even open a single app, without invoking a bot of some form. botnets get labled as bad things, funny but by people who don't understand the fundamental nature of bots, limitations of computers, etc. it is very simple, those who don't understand this get mislead. if you disabled every bot there might not even be a working computer to understand and explain things. if you pay close attention to sttng they are totally at the mercy of their computer in several episodes. yet they always find a silly or totally ficticious solution. botnets are a tool, one many people fear. which has left government and professional hackers, and a few children as the only people willing to mess with botnets. using apis to talk to them however is well documented, though programmers may not even be aware of what they are doing, when using high level programming languages etc. no i do not have any insider info, i just have a hobby using computers and i have seen how many games work for players, including the occasional glitch where scripted bots play video games (for cheaters)

--
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

A question by Grayhand · 2012-07-05 10:19 · Score: 2

"Security experts have discovered what is claimed to be the first ever piece of malware to be found in the Apple App Store"

How much does it cost? I'll buy anything for $.99

So whats the difference by EEPROMS · 2012-07-05 11:01 · Score: 2

"The app steals your contact data and uploads it to a remote server before sending spam SMS messages to all your contacts, but the messages look like they are coming from you."

So facebook is malware now ?

Access to Contacts by ToastedRhino · 2012-07-05 14:26 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm being naive, but doesn't pretty much every consumer OS now allow apps basically universal access to a user's contacts database? Windows does, OS X does, iOS does (for now), and Windows Phone does. Android prompts for this access, and iOS will as well starting with iOS 6, but the reality is that this app is advertised as a communication app, so anyone downloading it would almost certainly grant the app this privilege. So is this malware? Sure. Is this big, surprising news? I'm having a hard time understanding why it would be, especially to readers of Slashdot. Unless you just want to point fingers at Apple of course.

CarrierIQ isn't first. It was pre-installed. by utkonos · 2012-07-05 15:06 · Score: 1

Anyone who claims that CarrierIQ was actually the first malware in the app store for iOS is totally wrong. It was pre-installed by Apple on every phone. It was never available from the app store, so the headline is absolutely correct.

Re:Not for my iPad 1 by Kalriath · 2012-07-05 15:57 · Score: 1

No, Apple's problem is he's holding the wrong one.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

Pride and Falling by Rambo+Tribble · 2012-07-06 02:07 · Score: 1

The Applerati have long held an attitude of disdain for other platforms, while clinging to an illusion of invincibility inculcated by Apple marketing. It has always been a sham; researchers have repeatedly shown how Apple has introduced numerous vulnerabilities into OS X not present in its BSD antecedents.

Unfortunately, some Linux aficionados have been bitten by a similar bug. Nothing conceived by the human imagination is impervious to attack. Geek, secure thyself.

I think I have this... by Thumper_SVX · 2012-07-06 02:26 · Score: 1

The app steals your contact data and uploads it to a remote server before sending spam SMS messages to all your contacts, but the messages look like they are coming from you.

I think my iPhone has had this virus for a while. It also randomly changes all your contact's email addresses and is particularly nasty. It's called "Facebook"

Slashdot Mirror

First iOS Malware Discovered In Apple's App Store

114 of 171 comments (clear)