Slashdot Mirror


Mac OS X Bitcoin Stealing Trojan Horse Called OSX/CoinThief Discovered

An anonymous reader writes "SecureMac.com has discovered a new trojan horse for Mac OS X called OSX/CoinThief.A, which spies on web traffic to steal Bitcoins. This malware has been found in the wild, along with numerous reports of stolen coins. The malware, which comes disguised as an app to send and receive payments on Bitcoin Stealth Addresses, instead covertly monitors all web traffic in order to steal login info for Bitcoin wallets."

108 comments

  1. unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's no such thing as malware for Mac and there never has been.

    1. Re:unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nohn Jorstad is a liar!

    2. Re: unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Said no one ever. Not even Steve Jobs.

      There are no viruses. Learn the difference between a virus and a trojan horse.

      In essence, its not even a trojan horse but an app that does hidden, malicious things.

      Now compare that to the > 1 million malwares for Windows (adding dozens and hundreds every day) and tell me which one is safer?

    3. Re: unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oooh yes let's split hairs! while we're at it the Anonymous "hackers" are actually not hackers, they are "crackers"!

    4. Re: unpossible! by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Informative

      In essence, its not even a trojan horse but an app that does hidden, malicious things.

      Im pretty sure you just gave us the textbook definition of what a trojan is.

      > 1 million malware

      With such accurate facts (there are more than a million "malwares" for Unix as well) Im sure you are well qualified to make such a determination.

    5. Re: unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous are script kiddies. Noob.

    6. Re: unpossible! by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      oooh yes let's split hairs! while we're at it the Anonymous "hackers" are actually not hackers, they are "crackers"!

      Kind of a big hair there... One installs itself, and the other has to be installed by a user.

    7. Re:unpossible! by smash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trojan horses / user stupidity are OS independent.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    8. Re:unpossible! by monzie · · Score: 0, Troll

      There's no such thing as malware for Mac and there never has been.

      MS Office on Mac has been there for a long long time..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    9. Re: unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      oooh yes let's split hairs! while we're at it the Anonymous "hackers" are actually not hackers, they are "crackers"!

      Kind of a big hair there... One installs itself, and the other has to be installed by a user.

      That old distinction isn't really relevant anymore. What would you call Mac Flashback? (btw. the biggest malware epidemic in modern times in terms of percentage of user base infected, beat even Windows Conficker). There were versions of Mac Flashback that installed completely without user intervention or notice. And, "virus" of old isn't really the problem for Windows these days either.

    10. Re: unpossible! by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a metaphor for a big horse full of soldiers that opened a gate and let other stuff in so I think the AC has a valid point and your personal "textbook definition" does not.
      Just call it malware instead of trying to correct their use of the metaphor.

    11. Re: unpossible! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      In essence, its not even a trojan horse but an app that does hidden, malicious things.

      Im pretty sure you just gave us the textbook definition of what a trojan is.

      .

      Perhaps he was expecting a condom

    12. Re:unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, at this point, we can really just blame the NSA.

    13. Re:unpossible! by Rosyna · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To be fair, Apple does a hell of a lot to prevent user stupidity from installing Malware. Such as blacklisting known malware nearly immediately (as soon as Apple reverse engineers it, its signature is pushed out to ever mac user via a list that is updated every 24 hours).

      The sad thing is and a major security flaw of Apple's is that they create trust with third parties based on code signing. This allows code signed malware to skip the normal malware checks in Mac OS X. (It's super trivial to get multiple code signing certs from Apple and Apple doesn't verify code certs applications for individuals)

    14. Re:unpossible! by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      The platform is so locked-down, you can't even run malware.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    15. Re:unpossible! by Number42 · · Score: 1

      Locked down? Only if you can't configure GateKeeper and/or can't read a few guides.

    16. Re: unpossible! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      The Trojan horse aspect is the social engineering bit, where you install something thinking it is ok when it is not.

      So he does have a point after all -- that's what this is.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    17. Re:unpossible! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      There's no such thing as malware for Mac and there never has been.

      And Bitcoins are completely secure.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:unpossible! by monzie · · Score: 2

      You're so funny! I'd give you mod points if I weren't you.

    19. Re: unpossible! by danceswithtrees · · Score: 1

      Horse size?

    20. Re:unpossible! by smash · · Score: 1

      The whole point of code signing is that it relies on a chain of trust. As soon as your cert is used for any malware and that gets back to apple it will be revoked. This is the same for Windows.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    21. Re: unpossible! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      There are no viruses. Learn the difference between a virus and a trojan horse.

      Your semantics aren't going to get those bitcoins back.

    22. Re: unpossible! by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no amount of facts will get those back. So we might as well ignore the facts.

    23. Re:unpossible! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Just like there are no proper removal or diagnostic tools for Mac either! Well, that one's actually true. Good luck to all you overpaying, elitist douchebags who bought a mac. Still think you're so much better than everyone else? All I have to say is Abra-cadabra-CUDA-support...POOF, there went your alleged advantage almost a decade ago. It's magic!

    24. Re: unpossible! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      The fact is that a bunch of Mac users who thought their systems were secure, rightly or wrongly, lost a bunch of money.

    25. Re: unpossible! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      What, that's the only fact you can see? How small minded of you.

    26. Re:unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are! Let's see the victims try to get their money back. They can't, it's securely stolen.
      No chargebacks, bitch!

    27. Re: unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In essence, its not even a trojan horse but an app that does hidden, malicious things.

      Isn't that the definition of a trojan horse?

    28. Re:unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When everything is impossible except what is possible, it probably is that thing.

      Has anyone ever thought it might be Apple itself doing this?

    29. Re: unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In essence, its not even a trojan horse but an app that does hidden, malicious things.

      Sorry, I forgot that on Mac a program to be called a Trojan horse it needs to have a head, tail four legs with wheels and be made of wood, otherwise it is not a Trojan horse but just an app.

    30. Re:unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a really sad little boy...

    31. Re: unpossible! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The widespread definition of a trojan is an application with a known function which has been repackaged with hidden, malicious / subversive functionality in addition to the normal functionality. Think AIM.exe which allows you to chat with buddies, but also opens a reverse SSH connection to the attacker.

      I wasnt being facetious: GP was literally describing what a trojan "malware" is. The term is ancient, and so is the definition. Malware is a relatively recent, fairly ambiguous term: I'm not sure Ive ever heard a solid definition for what is and is not malware. AFAIK malware is "stuff I dont like" and sometimes includes spyware/adware, and sometimes does not.

      instead of trying to correct their use of the metaphor.

      So because some ignorant AC wants to misuse technical terms, I should simply abandon all precise terminology so that he doesnt feel totally left out? Yea, sorry, no thanks.

    32. Re:unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck to all you overpaying, elitist douchebags who bought a mac.

      Stereotypes are lies, and to use them is to admit that you're full of shit.

      Besides, you've already admitted to being an Apple fanboy.

    33. Re: unpossible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protect the Queen!

    34. Re: unpossible! by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      The fact is that a bunch of Mac users who thought their systems were secure, rightly or wrongly, lost a bunch of money.

      Those would be the handful of morons who bought into BitCoins in the first place.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  2. Slashcott! by LaminatorX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This site used to be great. Even in it's latter days, it's been good. That is poised to change. Before long, it will be mediocre, and ordinary.

    I didn't see a problem when Dice Holdings initially bought Slashdot. I figured there would be efforts to drive nerd traffic towards their job listings and such. That was fine. We all need jobs.

    Things have changed now. Beyond the shifts in story choices, the slashvertisements, and so on, something fundamental has changed: Slashdot's owners do not appreciate it.

    Their recent financials show that they have written its value as an asset down to zero. They have legally claimed it to be worthless. That is at the root of what is happening now. They want to fundamentally change the nature of this site in order to remake it into something with big growth potential.

    Beta is just the latest symptom of this disease. It will not be the last. In striving to make it into a site that will bring them a growing user base and growing revenue per user, they have shown a willingness to dumb down the interface in the name of making it more accessible to newcomers, to cast aside essential elements of decade-spanning community culture, and to plow ahead with changes in the face of overwhelmingly negative user feedback.

    This is not going to change. This will not go away. I will not support it.

    I will be gone for this entire week, in protest. While away, I will work to create a new community where things can be run with quality user discussions as the paramount objective.

    Be seeing you.

    1. Re:Slashcott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dashslot sucking fucks!

    2. Re:Slashcott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I will work to create a new community where things can be run with quality user discussions as the paramount objective..

      Where? I might want to join.

    3. Re:Slashcott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where? I might want to join.

      After the community fragments, there won't be a community left to join. You might as well just type up your comments and choose File Exit Don't Save.

    4. Re:Slashcott! by LaminatorX · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wohoo, two minutes left, I can reply.
      http://www.soylentnews.org/wik...
      www.soylentnews.org/Forum/
      http://webchat.freenode.net/ channel ##altslashdot.

      Out.

    5. Re:Slashcott! by pitchpipe · · Score: 1

      I will be gone for this entire week, in protest.

      Same. I hope that we can then see incremental improvements to this site taking into consideration feedback from the users/contributors, and that they can then drop the mentality that we are just eyeballs to put as many advertising dollars in front of. Sadly, I'm not hopeful.

      See you in a week, I'm out.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    6. Re:Slashcott! by gnoshi · · Score: 1

      Call me when soylentnews.org points to a news site.

    7. Re:Slashcott! by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 0

      Begone and good riddence to your vandalizing of channels.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    8. Re:Slashcott! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      How many times do we have to read this "final message"?

    9. Re:Slashcott! by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      http://www.diceholdingsinc.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=211152&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1896508
      Feb. 4, 2014

      Recent Developments

      Slashdot Media was acquired to provide content and services that are important to technology professionals in their everyday work lives and to leverage that reach into the global technology community benefiting user engagement on the Dice.com site. The expected benefits have started to be realized at Dice.com. However, advertising revenue has declined over the past year and there is no improvement expected in the future financial performance of Slashdot Media's underlying advertising business. Therefore, $7.2 million of intangible assets and $6.3 million of goodwill related to Slashdot Media were reduced to zero.

      Be seeing you.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    10. Re:Slashcott! by rainhill · · Score: 1

      >> I will work to create a new community where things can be run with quality user discussions as the paramount objective.

      and before long, you will be cashing out too... CmdrTaco did.

      oooh the $weet money.

      change is the only constant, as someone once said. Dice saw the high-flying twitters and facebooks, and said; hey, how to increase slashdot users, to make more money? how? how? howwww?

      all this, is only natural.

    11. Re:Slashcott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their recent financials show that they have written its value as an asset down to zero. They have legally claimed it to be worthless.

      No it doesn't and no they haven't. You're too busy being a dick to actually comprehend what you're reading. They have written off the *intangible* value, not the actual asset.

    12. Re:Slashcott! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I read that over and over again and I figured out what that paragraph actually means. It means that they are liars. Advertising revenue has declined, so they are claiming that it is zero. Meanwhile, they have grossly overvalued Slashdot, so this lie follows an earlier lie. Send in the clowns [at the SEC!]

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Slashcott! by gnoshi · · Score: 1

      If the net effect of beta is fucktards like you going elsewhere, it might be a net positive outcome.

    14. Re:Slashcott! by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is dying. Diceholdings Inc. confirms it.

  3. SAVE SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    http://webchat.freenode.net/

    #altslashdot

  4. Lost in the Desert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    So, there's a man crawling through the desert.

    He'd decided to try his SUV in a little bit of cross-country travel, had great fun zooming over the badlands and through the sand, got lost, hit a big rock, and then he couldn't get it started again. There were no cell phone towers anywhere near, so his cell phone was useless. He had no family, his parents had died a few years before in an auto accident, and his few friends had no idea he was out here.

    He stayed with the car for a day or so, but his one bottle of water ran out
    and he was getting thirsty. He thought maybe he knew the direction back, now that he'd paid attention to the sun and thought he'd figured out which way was north, so he decided to start walking. He figured he only had to go about 30 miles or so and he'd be back to the small town he'd gotten gas in last.

    He thinks about walking at night to avoid the heat and sun, but based upon
    how dark it actually was the night before, and given that he has no flashlight, he's afraid that he'll break a leg or step on a rattlesnake. So,
    he puts on some sun block, puts the rest in his pocket for reapplication
    later, brings an umbrella he'd had in the back of the SUV with him to give
    him a little shade, pours the windshield wiper fluid into his water bottle
    in case he gets that desperate, brings his pocket knife in case he finds a cactus that looks like it might have water in it, and heads out in the
    direction he thinks is right.

    He walks for the entire day. By the end of the day he's really thirsty. He's
    been sweating all day, and his lips are starting to crack. He's reapplied the sunblock twice, and tried to stay under the umbrella, but he still feels sunburned. The windshield wiper fluid sloshing in the bottle in his pocket is really getting tempting now. He knows that it's mainly water and some ethanol and coloring, but he also knows that they add some kind of poison to it to keep people from drinking it. He wonders what the poison is, and
    whether the poison would be worse than dying of thirst.

    He pushes on, trying to get to that small town before dark.

    By the end of the day he starts getting worried. He figures he's been walking at least 3 miles an hour, according to his watch for over 10 hours. That means that if his estimate was right that he should be close to the
    town. But he doesn't recognize any of this. He had to cross a dry creek bed a mile or two back, and he doesn't remember coming through it in the SUV. He figures that maybe he got his direction off just a little and that the dry creek bed was just off to one side of his path. He tells himself that he's close, and that after dark he'll start seeing the town lights over one of these hills, and that'll be all he needs.

    As it gets dim enough that he starts stumbling over small rocks and things,
    he finds a spot and sits down to wait for full dark and the town lights.

    Full dark comes before he knows it. He must have dozed off. He stands back
    up and turns all the way around. He sees nothing but stars.

    He wakes up the next morning feeling absolutely lousy. His eyes are gummy and his mouth and nose feel like they're full of sand. He so thirsty that he can't even swallow. He barely got any sleep because it was so cold. He'd forgotten how cold it got at night in the desert and hadn't noticed it the night before because he'd been in his car.

    He knows the Rule of Threes - three minutes without air, three days without water, three weeks without food - then you die. Some people can make it a little longer, in the best situations. But the desert heat and having to walk and sweat isn't the best situation to be without water. He figures, unless he finds water, this is his last day.

    He rinses his mouth out with a little of the windshield wiper fluid. He waits a while after spitting that little bit out, to see if his mouth goes numb, or he feels dizzy or something. Has his mouth gone numb? Is it just in
    his mind? He's not sure. He'll go a little farther, and if he stil

  5. Re:RIP SLASHDOT by buswolley · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Beware Dice malware named Beta

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  6. Re: Slashcott! Excremental improvements by j-stroy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The incremental improvement concept is a dead horse. As the saying goes: "can't polish a turd". I'm out for the week. Boycott in effect. Shame on you, a bunch of fuckers all so say I.

  7. What happened to the previous story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh that's right, so much Beta talk the mods deleted it. What a joke.

    RIP Slashdot. Mods better spruce up their resume, though killing a major site like Slashdot won't look good on the job market, now will it?

    1. Re:What happened to the previous story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mods better spruce up their resume, though killing a major site like Slashdot won't look good on the job market, now will it?

      That's OK. They can collect Obamacare.

    2. Re:What happened to the previous story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute that you think slashdot is a major site.

  8. I am dissappoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a single camel fucking scene.

  9. There can be but damage is more limiting by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Informative

    Everyone has known forever you can have malware on a Mac. That's hardly a surprise.

    But malware is more limited on a Mac than other systems - for one thing no users run as admin as they do on Windows.

    Also with Mavericks gatekeeper would preset you with a nice juicy dialog preventing you from running this untrusted and unsigned malware. You would have to take several steps of your own volition to run it at all...

    You Mac haters are saying you don't want the Mac to turn into iOS. Well which is it? Let users run unapproved software after several "Are you sure" kinds of stopping points? Or only allow signed binaries on the system?

    Make up your mind.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:There can be but damage is more limiting by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also with Mavericks gatekeeper would preset you with a nice juicy dialog preventing you from running this untrusted and unsigned malware. You would have to take several steps of your own volition to run it at all...

      You Mac haters are saying you don't want the Mac to turn into iOS. Well which is it? Let users run unapproved software after several "Are you sure" kinds of stopping points? Or only allow signed binaries on the system?

      All the Apple haters have missed the fact that Gatekeeper is remarkably balanced. You can choose - go all the way with a walled garden, all the way with unsigned binaries, or go walled garden with the option to allow people to sign the code (semi-walled garden) (the default setting, too).

      It costs a developer $99, or for orgs like Mozilla, they have two from Apple - a production signing version and a beta signing version, in case either one gets revoked for whatever reason.

      But it allows apps that doesn't require Apple to approve - the developer buys a cert and Apple has no say in what it's used to sign. Of course, if it's hacked or stolen, Apple can revoke it (happened a few times already when some trojan hijacked a developer's certificate - Apple revoked it and that trojan couldn't run easily anymore).

      Of course, there's another subtlety that is not mentioned about Gatekeeper - it only triggers on stuff downloaded from the Internet. The output of your program you just compiled? Will not trigger Gatekeeper as it's assumed the dev tools are "safe".

      And since developers need to develop, and companies like Adobe, Microsoft and others need to get around the App Store limitations (or even Autodesk, who wants to use the App Store, but finds the $999.99 max price limiting), ensures the Mac will never "close off" and be walled like iOS. After all, on a Mac, it needs to run untrusted binaries somehow in order for developers to well, develop.

      That, and it's so bloody easy to jailbreak a Mac if you really needed to - just pop out the hard drive, or plug it into the PCIe slot in your PC. Or just run Windows and a Windows based jailbreak app. Or Linux.

    2. Re:There can be but damage is more limiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You Mac haters are saying you don't want the Mac to turn into iOS."

      That statement doesn't make sense. It implies that the "haters" think that Mac OS X is a good thing.

    3. Re:There can be but damage is more limiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's as though some kind of cum guzzling gutter slut of a trashy bitch frigged her disease ridden vagina again and again until a big gooey blob of infected pus finally PLOPPED out of her snatch and into the floor, steaming and smelling and looking very much like a freshly squeezed turd.

      The thought of that just makes your dick hard every time.

      Oh yeah and Beta sucks.

    4. Re:There can be but damage is more limiting by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      "You Mac haters are saying you don't want the Mac to turn into iOS."

      That statement doesn't make sense. It implies that the "haters" think that Mac OS X is a good thing.

      Who ever said Mac haters make any sense? It is their claim after all.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    5. Re: There can be but damage is more limiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunter? Is that you?

    6. Re:There can be but damage is more limiting by Boronx · · Score: 2

      Macs let you sudo any time an application requests, which is pretty much the same as Windows. Even an admin account in windows will at least force you to click through if an application wants to make admin privileged changes.

      In both systems a lot of legitimate installs need this, so unwary users get used to allowing new programs admin/root access.

    7. Re:There can be but damage is more limiting by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Macs let you sudo any time an application requests, which is pretty much the same as Windows. Even an admin account in windows will at least force you to click through if an application wants to make admin privileged changes.

      OSX does more than make you "click through". Privileged operations require a password.

  10. Re:Why are you idiots not gone yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD DOWN FLAMEBAIT

  11. Slashdot stopped being worth reading a decade ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember when Slashdot was full of intelligent people ... but it's been shit since, I don't know, 2000.

    And yes I used to have an account. Anyway, they want to screw up the software? Who cares, you bunch screwed up the content long enough ago for children to be born and have adult teeth!

  12. Fuck beta by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 0

    Fuck beta /thread

  13. Using unsigned apps to handle your money? by Burz · · Score: 1

    Brilliant!

    OK, I'm assuming here that the app is unsigned. Its interesting that reporters at security news sites don't seem to care.

  14. Doing it the lazy way by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The obvious way to corner the bitcoin "market" now is distributed malware to "mine" the coins instead of stealing them.

  15. meta discussions belong on the meta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please use meta.apple-beta.slashdot.org to discuss slashdot beta, not the main. Meta comments are very welcome there. Thanks !

    And by the way, there is nothing wrong with beta. Works perfectly on my iPad Air !

  16. Two Step by Cruciform · · Score: 1

    Any of the big exchanges (and most of the medium sized ones) offer two step authentication. If someone is storing coins online, whether at an exchange or in an online wallet, then two step auth is mandatory.
    Seeing how sites can vanish overnight I wouldn't advise using an online wallet anyway. Keep a personal encrypted wallet, and only move coins on to exchanges long enough to do transactions.

  17. FUCK BETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Off for a week, Fuck Beta, Fuck Dice, altslashdot for the win.

  18. You should stop using Windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait... OSX?

  19. No... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    That statement doesn't make sense. It implies that the "haters" think that Mac OS X is a good thing.

    Mac haters use any possible excuse why they do not run a Mac, and that is one of them (they claim it is "turning into iOS" when plainly that is not the case).

    Also as the other responder noted, the traditional Apple Hater is short of reason as it is so you attempt to apply logic to behavior is dubious at best.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re: No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your cult seems more like Scientology all the time.

      C'mon, let's hear some more well-reasoned stuff about your Mac.

      The Mac and it's cult-following couldn't exist in a world where there weren't 'haters' out there to circle the wagons and defend against.

      So keep putzin' along dude.

  20. OSX/CoinThief ??? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    Isn't that a bit of a giveaway, if you write a Trojan and call it OSX/CoinThief? I know there are people out there who think people buying Macs do so because they are too stupid to handle real computers, but nobody could possibly think they are stupid enough to install an app called OSX/CoinThief? Is that how the trojan was found? Someone thought the name is a bit suspicious and started looking?

    1. Re:OSX/CoinThief ??? by silverdr · · Score: 1

      Some people are too stupid to handle "real" computers and some are too stupid to learn how malware is classified and what a malware index is. Hint: OSX/CoinThief.A is NOT a name of the program in question.

      --
      Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
    2. Re:OSX/CoinThief ??? by mellyra · · Score: 2

      Isn't that a bit of a giveaway, if you write a Trojan and call it OSX/CoinThief? I know there are people out there who think people buying Macs do so because they are too stupid to handle real computers, but nobody could possibly think they are stupid enough to install an app called OSX/CoinThief? Is that how the trojan was found? Someone thought the name is a bit suspicious and started looking?

      OSX/CoinThief.A is the name the security reseachers gave the trojan. The actual application was called StealthBit.

    3. Re:OSX/CoinThief ??? by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 1

      I don't think I would install an application called StealthBit either. Sounds like an accident waiting to happen.

    4. Re:OSX/CoinThief ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a wallet that implements stealth addresses, therefore the name.

  21. Bitcoins? Thank God! by oscrivellodds · · Score: 1

    For a moment I thought we were talking about MONEY!

  22. Re:Beta Fightback by ITMagic · · Score: 1

    Whilst I, like every else here, seem to hate the changes being made here, are all the people here who post complaints here totally IT incapable?

    If anyone here reads /. using firefox, it doesn't take a huge degree of effort to edit the HTML 'on the fly', and strip out all the offensive code. Has anyone looked at the RSS feed lately? It is abominable!

    SOLUTION: Install Stylish, and voila. Complete control to throw away all the crap.

    We probably should set up a community-driven recipe that everyone can download without the hassle of writing their own recipe. I *might* try to get round to doing this in a day or so... No promises, though.

  23. But Bitcoin is just like currency... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    ...only better.

    Uh-huh. Sure.

    1. Re:But Bitcoin is just like currency... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Credit cards are just like currency only better. Once someone gets your unique combination of account numbers, you're screwed.

    2. Re:But Bitcoin is just like currency... by dk20 · · Score: 1

      Seems its "Greatest strength" is also its greatest weakness (anonymous transfers)?

      Had this been a case of your money being stolen from a real bank you would have several methods of recourse.

    3. Re:But Bitcoin is just like currency... by Algae_94 · · Score: 2

      Said the guy who never had fraudulent charges reversed on a credit card. Try doing that with cash.

      There are definite negatives to using credit cards, but they have advantages as well.

  24. Re:Bitcoins? Thank God! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Yes, as we all well know, bitcoins are worthless and so therefore nobody would ever steal them and so therefore this whole article is a lie from Satan.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  25. Re: Slashcott! Excremental improvements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please don't come back!

  26. Of Trojan Horsies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ulysses come back with my bits!

  27. No, some things will not run by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Macs let you sudo any time an application requests

    Some things will not launch at all unless you disable, or work around gatekeeper. If I download an unsigned executable I cannot just run it, I have to right-click and select open to force Gatekeeper to run it. That's a pretty good default level of security.

    Then after that point - yes an application can request further access, but it's a pretty glaring thing to pull up the password prompt. Even non technical users would think a little about why that was happening.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  28. Re:Bitcoins? Thank God! by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    A few misguided or otherwise benighted induhviduals who believe Bitcoin is money doesn't make it so.

  29. Re:Buck feta by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

    "Do you mean WinXP or Win8?"

    Yes.