Slashdot Mirror


New OS X Backdoor Malware Roping Macs Into Botnet

An anonymous reader writes New malware targeting Mac machines, opening backdoors on them and roping them into a botnet currently numbering around 17,000 zombies has been spotted. The malware, dubbed Mac.BackDoor.iWorm, targets computers running OS X and makes extensive use of encryption in its routines, Dr. Web researchers noted. What's even more interesting is that it gets the IP address of a valid command and control (C&C) server from a post on popular news site Reddit. The malware is capable of discovering what other software is installed on the machine, opening a port on it, and sending a query to a web server to acquire the addresses of the C&C servers.

172 comments

  1. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure the botnet just works and that its a great feature.....

    1. Re: Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Reddit?

      Will this one be popularly known as the Hipster Virus?

    2. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We could have joined botnets years ago, but it was never about just joining a botnet. We wanted to take our time and get it right." - Tim Cook

  2. Quite useless article by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is really no information here. How does it spread? Does it spread through utter user stupidity, or is it actually dangerous? It says infected Macs are added to a botnet of 17,000 computers - is that 16,999 PCs and one Mac, or 17,000 Macs?

    1. Re:Quite useless article by morgauxo · · Score: 1, Funny

      >>Does it spread through utter user stupidity
      Duh, you have to use a Mac to get it!

    2. Re: Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hold on there, now.

      Apple pays some fairly smart people to use Macs. It's not all hairdressers and graphics designers.

    3. Re:Quite useless article by smallfries · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well I'm a mac user and I think that you'll find that I am quite superior to you in every way.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    4. Re:Quite useless article by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Considering the number of Windows machines on botnets.....

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like most Apple users, you "think" you are superior to everyone else.

      CAPTCHA = despised

    6. Re:Quite useless article by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've found most Mac users seem to respect BSD users. They assume anyone running windows is IQ challenged.

    7. Re:Quite useless article by amiga3D · · Score: 0

      Windows machines don't count. They're designed to be backdoored. Apple's actually are supposed to be secure.

    8. Re:Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Must have been a PC user who failed to recognize humor and flagged your post flamebait, because Mac users wouldn't make that mistake.

    9. Re:Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like most Apple users, you "know" you are superior to everyone else.

      Fixed for you.

    10. Re:Quite useless article by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

      The fact that they're referring to it as iWorm, suggesting it's self-propagating, yet not describing the method of propagation, seems incredibly irresponsible to me.

      I read through both articles, and there's no mention of the following either:
      1) Does the app use a registered Developer ID or not? If not, then the malware is only capable of running on Macs of individuals who have changed the default behavior of the system to allow apps from any source (default behavior is to either only allow apps from the Mac App Store or only allow apps from registered developers...can't remember which). If so, then Apple can revoke the Developer ID in a silent update to prevent it from executing on any machine using default settings.

      2) Has Apple issued a malware definition update yet? OS X has had XProtect, a silent, built-in malware removal tool since 2011 or so, that pulls down malware definition updates on a daily basis in the background and both works to prevent malware installations as well as removes them if they are found. By the time malware gets widely reported enough that sites like Slashdot are reporting it, Apple has usually already issued an update to prevent further infections and eliminates the existing ones. Given that those articles are from a few days ago, Apple may have already done so in this case.

      3) What systems does it infect? If it really is a worm that only has 17,000 computers, it may just be a case of exploiting a known bug in versions of the OS that haven't been supported for years. Or it may be that it's a brand new threat exploiting the latest version of the OS. We have no way of knowing, based on the shoddy reporting by the researchers.

      4) Do users still get the default prompt that they're executing an app for the first time, or does it circumvent that somehow?

      Basically, we know nothing about it or how dangerous is actually is, thanks to the researchers withholding everything about it.

    11. Re:Quite useless article by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I assume anyone running Windows is a gamer, anyone running OS X is doing desktop/front-end work and anyone running Linux/BSD is doing server work.

    12. Re:Quite useless article by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      these are all really great questions and I would like to know the answers. Meanwhile, here's a bit of extra info from TFA: "The reddit.com search returns a web page containing the list of botnet C&C servers and ports published by criminals in comments to the post minecraftserverlists under the account vtnhiaovyd."

      so its clear that the user vtnhiaovyd is a 14yo minecraft fan who probably developed this extensive botnet as a way to farm gold or whatever you do in minecraft.

    13. Re:Quite useless article by maestroX · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mac?
      Windows 7 is simply Microsoft's best operating system ever. Mac fanboys should worry and circle together in defensive posture.
      [203.0.113.201, 198.51.100.2, 169.254.1.19, 172.16.1.2, 203.2.11.2,]

    14. Re:Quite useless article by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Windows 7 is simply Microsoft's best operating system ever.

      As a user of both Windows and OS X, I would wholeheartedly agree.

      Too bad Microsoft threw it away...

    15. Re:Quite useless article by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmm, I've been on UNIX since SunOS days and Solaris was the new kid on the block. I've written a device driver that shipped in a commercial UNIX kernel. That said, I chose as my desktop a hybrid BSD/Microkernel architecture with POSIX compliance and a modern GUI. Or in other words, a Mac.

      Macs are not stupid, they are made to be simple to use. That external simplicity hides a deep complexity underneath. I think people who don't understand that making something complex to be simple to use is one of the hardest things in Computer Science. A good size for desktop computers now is about 8GB of RAM or more. At any given time, 8GB will give you 2^(8*(2^23)) states, which of course will change in a nanosecond. Mac OS tries to, as much as possible, hide the states that don't mean anything to you. It's not that the MacOS guys don't know they exist. They just feel YOU don't need to know they exist. Maybe they're wrong, but it's a conscious decision where they know the states that exist and they feel that showing the states is less helpful than the confusion it would engender.. Not stupidity.

      The main issue (and where you have a point though you exaggerate it way past its validity) is sometimes things are complex, and if you hide that complexity, you actually cause a disservice. Apple hides a lot of its security notices. As Macs become more and more of a target, they really need to not hide the complexity as much so that people can make valid choices on how to prevent malware infections.

    16. Re:Quite useless article by Spliffster · · Score: 1

      Good questions indeed. Apple has rolled out a "Safari Update" on Sept 29th, but there seems to be more to it, however, apple is very secretive about the security updates. Something I really dislike about them:
      http://support.apple.com/kb/HT...

    17. Re:Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Noob: NO system is EVER secure. You always test and check and recheck and retest.

    18. Re:Quite useless article by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Nothing is ever 100%. 99.99999 is achievable but not really much fun for daily web surfing and such. The trick is to keep an OS on an Optical disk. I use a linux distro the USAF provides called LPS for banking and such. I boot my laptop from it, do my business and pull the disk and reboot for surfing the Web.

      http://www.spi.dod.mil/lipose....

    19. Re:Quite useless article by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      [...] At any given time, 8GB will give you 2^(8*(2^23)) states, which of course will change in a nanosecond. [...]

      First of all, you mean 8 GiB, not 8 GB.

      8 GB is 8*(10^9) bytes, whereas 8 GiB is 8*(2^30) = 2^33 bytes.

      Secondly, 8 GiB is actually 2^(8*(2^33)) states, not 2^(8*(2^23)) states. (What you gave was the number of states for 8 MiB.)

    20. Re:Quite useless article by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Grrr, you're right. I did 8 * 2^10 * 2^10, when i should have done 8 * 2^10 * 2^10 * 2^10. Off by mega => giga.

      Thanks, my bad math. But if anything, this makes my point stronger rather than weaker.

    21. Re:Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The requirement to use signed software only applies to folders whose name ends in ".app".

      Any real software still gets run untrusted.

      In other words, this "feature" is a terribly effective way of making sure that the novices are too scared to try new software, but not a way of adding security.

    22. Re:Quite useless article by ZXDunny · · Score: 1

      Meh. Back in my day, I had a 64Kb computer which had 65,536 addressable bytes in memory, with 49152 usable outside of the ROM. I never once saw a spurious "i" being inserted into the documentation, and in terms of memory storage there doesn't seem to be any real need for one. Also, we measured storage in minutes. Gerroff my lawn!

      --
      10 PRINT "SCUNTHORPE"(2 TO 5): GO TO 10
    23. Re:Quite useless article by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      anyone who isn't a little aspy knew what he was saying and doesn't care.

    24. Re:Quite useless article by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      Most accurate breakdown ever.

    25. Re:Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And not even fully to those - only to files downloaded and marked as quarantined.

      If you want to run an unsigned app without a prompt, just remove the extended attribute on the file:

      xattr -d -r com.apple.quarantine DownloadedApp.app

      It's usually easier just to right-click and select open, which works with a prompt. For some reason, people act like unsigned apps are completely un-runnable, which is utter bollocks. It does prevent malware launching without SOME user interaction though.

    26. Re:Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a virus dedicated to one OS will infect 16,999 PCs LOL

    27. Re:Quite useless article by CBravo · · Score: 1

      Browsing and mail seems to work. RLY.

      --
      nosig today
    28. Re:Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nice. does it have bash and dhclient?

      the USAF

      You must feel like you're really a 1773 h4x05z to use a distro provided by the US*anything*, or really naive. Or both.

    29. Re:Quite useless article by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      Windows machines don't count. They're designed to be backdoored. Apple's actually are supposed to be secure.

      MacOS is only secure because it's less popular. Notice all these great opensource bugs being found like heartbleed and shellshock. These are in business applications which means it's worse than your home user not doing their windows updates.

    30. Re:Quite useless article by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      these are all really great questions and I would like to know the answers. Meanwhile, here's a bit of extra info from TFA: "The reddit.com search returns a web page containing the list of botnet C&C servers and ports published by criminals in comments to the post minecraftserverlists under the account vtnhiaovyd." so its clear that the user vtnhiaovyd is a 14yo minecraft fan who probably developed this extensive botnet as a way to farm gold or whatever you do in minecraft.

      They could just delete that Reddit post.

    31. Re:Quite useless article by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      I'm very curious. Can't we just delete the file, reboot and be in the clear? The only provided solution is to use DrD' antivirus product. That seems silly.

    32. Re:Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, well, aren't they??

    33. Re: Quite useless article by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, not really. By numbers and via common denominator, the Win32 is used by most home and businesses. One of the main factors that makes Windows so vulnerable is backwards compatibility cruft which introduces bugs and exploits. That, and a poor user security paradigm. OSX tends to break but refine with each release (more so than Windows at leas). Also, apps are signed. Unsigned apps won't run as they're untrusted. This can be overridden by the user in the security settings, but it takes a more conscious decision vs. blindingly clicking "YES, I want to run that thing".

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    34. Re:Quite useless article by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Well....I actually work for the Air Force as a civilian. Thus they already have pretty much all my personal information in my 201 file.

    35. Re:Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm whats the overall ratio though?

    36. Re: Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point is stupid. No, it is NOT actively trying to hide shit ton of RAM states from the user and only providing this very sequence of state changes every nanosecond, that is just a by product of it being an operating system. No different than any of.

    37. Re: Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of=other.

    38. Re:Quite useless article by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      A lot of us use OS X for server work. A real terminal (though I really just need ssh and scp), can use nearly every tool I can use on Linux, yet not stuck with the *cough* horrendous Linux desktop experience.

      Plus, I get the added bonus of being able to ARD mac systems, test AFP shares from servers that use them, and run Win and Linux VMs. The only way to run all three without wasting a lot of time is on a Mac.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    39. Re: Quite useless article by mauna+kea+ranger · · Score: 1

      "... only secure because ..." OMG. Do you realize how ignorant that makes you sound---parroting the "Market Share Myth?"

    40. Re:Quite useless article by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      I respect all real operating systems by which I mean all Unix-like operating systems. Everything else is shit, by which I mean Windows is shit. Way back, the classic Mac system software was shit too.

      My wife once asked me why Unix was so great. I told her it's hard to explain, but those guys at AT&T were just touched by God or something. They did it right. Other attempts at making general purpose operating systems have not been right.

    41. Re:Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  3. Oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no I've got worms

  4. Probably capable of more than Reddit by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2

    What's even more interesting is that it gets the IP address of a valid command and control (C&C) server from a post on popular news site Reddit. The malware is capable of discovering what other software is installed on the machine, opening a port on it, and sending a query to a web server to acquire the addresses of the C&C servers.

    It's a likely bet that it's been configured to find valid C&C IP addresses from other sites, too--Reddit is a high-volume user generated content site, with a lot of existing spam/troll fighting technology in place. So it's pretty likely this avenue will get blocked soon (if Reddit isn't working on it already) and the next large public-site gets rolled over to.

    It's devious and brilliant, to use a public site... More devious if they built it smart enough that Reddit can't block it programatically.

    --
    Who did what now?
  5. Ugh by Pope · · Score: 0

    Fucking reddit. *shakes fist*

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    1. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LE U MAD BRO ARMY

  6. Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But then .. from TFA

    Unfortunately, the researchers didn't mention how the malware spreads, but they shared that it is unpacked into the /Library/Application Support/JavaW directory, poses as the application com.JavaW, and sets itself to autostart.

    So for all I know, this could either be a world shattering event where by zero day exploits are being used on OSX to leverage malware.

    OR it could be like the HK protesters where by you needed to J/B your phone first.

    So I am reserving my panic until I know more.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Given that most Macs can't run untrusted software, the mostly likely vector for malware is a trojan. Possibly attached to pirate versions of well known applications. Users of such pirate software would expect to have to explicitly give permission to untrusted software.

    2. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      So...they get infected just like Windows does? Because at the shop the vast majority I see are either "user installs pirated shit, gets bug" and "Hey u want to see teh hot lezbos for free? Install 'Iz_not_Viruz_is_Codec.exe" so u can watch teh hot womens 4 free!" which it wouldn't surprise me is also being used for this attack....except you know replace lezbos with "oiled up muscle men" ;-)

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Informative

      So...they get infected just like Windows does?

      Just like ANY OS that accepts 3rd party software does.

      Your homophobia is noted.

    4. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by gtall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's really weird is that you consider a sexual slur integral to your argument.

    5. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I think the last batch of infections around here came from programs masquerading as DATA. These programs masquerading as DATA were "installed" by trying to view the DATA as it came to the user in the platform vendors email program.

      This is not quite your Android style Trojan.

      Someone chose to blur the line between data and programs and confuse the end user and to seek to keep them ignorant.

      DATA (untrusted) being treated as a program is also the essence of the Shellshock bug and is boneheadedly intolerable for the same reasons.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I run little snitch on my Macs and I'm constantly amazed at how many of my programs want to talk to some site or other. It's annoying because I have to research and see why they want to contact these places and what exactly is going on. I find that if I just block them it's almost never a problem though.

    7. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How can Macs be for homosexuals when it's Windows that is designed to be backdoored . . .

    8. Re: Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might also be for programmers. I see lots of them in active use. They are popular at admin, programmer, cloud, and data groups.

      I don't see chromeOS.

    9. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by macs4all · · Score: 0

      But then .. from TFA

      Unfortunately, the researchers didn't mention how the malware spreads, but they shared that it is unpacked into the /Library/Application Support/JavaW directory, poses as the application com.JavaW, and sets itself to autostart.

      So for all I know, this could either be a world shattering event where by zero day exploits are being used on OSX to leverage malware.

      OR it could be like the HK protesters where by you needed to J/B your phone first.

      So I am reserving my panic until I know more.

      And what of these mythical "Backdoors"? Isn't it convenient that the "Researchers" provide zero information on them?

    10. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Non-App Store programs often check for software updates on a regular basis. Worst are those that autorun a daemon specifically for this: Adobe is one of the worst offenders (and indeed many other software crimes.)

      Have you spotted any other common categories of why they might do so?

    11. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, Apple makes it easy to blur those lines by leaving the "show all file extensions" checkbox off by default. That checkbox should be removed, and it should be turned permanently on.

    12. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I would say most macs can run untrusted software.
      First of all plenty of users are still in 10.6.xx and further more every "power" user changes the settings. As it is super annoying to be asked every time if you want to start this "untrusted application". For some reason there is no: "never ask again for this app" option.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      First of all plenty of users are still in 10.6.xx and further more every "power" user changes the settings.

      Only about 8% are still on Snow Leopard. And you have no idea what setting people have for this. The smart money is on most people still having the default setting - with is not to allow untrusted apps. I'm certainly a power user and I still have the default setting. On the extremely rare occasions I want to run something downloaded from the internet that doesn't have a security cert, I use the one off button on System Preferences to just approve that one binary.

      For some reason there is no: "never ask again for this app" option.

      Once you've approved it, it never will ask again for that app. Of course if you then download another version, that's no longer the same app.

    14. Re: Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Macs are also popular at JPL; for like, you know, rocket surgery?

    15. Re: Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until recently, afaik, the daemon ran was for licensing.

      Ability to write/read license info for the host level not just the user level.

    16. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      One program's author told me he had it sending him certain usage info. I never really got what he was talking about so I muzzled the software. It don't have shit to say no more. I cheerfully paid the Little Snitch author. Wonderful and easy to use software it is.

    17. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Neither the fact that other people have repeated it extensively before, nor whines about "political correctness" excuse your homophobia.

    18. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by BasilBrush · · Score: 3

      File extensions are absolutely irrelevant. If your malware security relies in any way on users knowing what file extensions are it's broken.

      There's no confusing programs for data on Macs as any downloaded executable that isn't signed won't run without explicitly allowing it (individually or by changing the default security setting).

    19. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Simply double clicking doesn't allow an unsigned application to open; but if you right click the application and "Open" it, then it will ask you to approve the application. So you don't need to go to system preferences.

    20. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If you once have approved it, it asks you again for that app and asks you again for that and asks you again for that app as often as you restart the app. At least that happens for me on OS X 10.9 hence I disabled that 'feature' ...

      Mac OS X 10.6.xxx did not have those Gatekeeper options, hence there is no default setting ... sigh, that was the point about my post.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      If you once have approved it, it asks you again for that app and asks you again for that and asks you again for that app as often as you restart the app.

      Then you should file a bug or research what the problem with your installation is. The correct behaviour as happens to me is that you are asked to approve a downloaded app once when you download it. It never asks again for that app, unless and until you download another version of it.

      Mac OS X 10.6.xxx did not have those Gatekeeper options, hence there is no default setting ... sigh, that was the point about my post.

      Sure. But that's a small percentage. And being less secure is one of the cons of deciding to stay with a old version of an OS.

    22. Re: Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, fag.

    23. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Hm, perhaps I have to check again.
      For me both my OS X 1.6 and OS X 10.9 behave the same, they ask _once_ before I open a downloaded app.
      And I doubt that this can be even disabled, before I disabled 'something' (have to check what I disabled) the 10.9 Mac asked at every start of the same app.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re: Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same here 10.9 ask everytime I open the app. not just the first start up.

    25. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been using Macs since the days of the original and there have been windows people complaining since the first Mac was unpacked. Enough, focus on what the article says and what it doesn't say. We get it, you want your Windows, fine, now leave us alone. If all you want is to gloat that N number of Macs have become part of a botnet then let me gloat about..... ah, the hell with it, I really don't care how many WinTel boxes have a cold!

      Now, to answer the current branch: I use little snitch myself -mostly on my laptop- and it is 95% of the time a slew of third party apps that end up being blocked. I don't think I have ever seen an Apple app in there. As you can imagine, I am most assuredly a "power user" and aside from being mostly a term that refers to individuals who can coax a recalcitrant WinTel machine to join a network or that can edit the registry, it is mostly a meaningless term. That being said, there is no reason whatsoever to turn Gatekeeper off. Using the "and known developers" setting, installing the app and putting it back to its most restrictive setting will normally result in an installed app that works with just a click.

      When you are being asked again and again if you really want to open an app there are two possible explanations: either it doesn't actually install and just runs off the image or it is adding things to itself when you are not using it such that when Gatekeeper looks at it, its signature has changed enough to warrant the question. I would say use little snitch and block it and remove it from the firewall list. Then, use the app and watch little snitch and see what the app is doing. I use another layer of security: Sophos security (anti virus seems absurd in a discussion concerning botnets) Since it is free and uses very few system resources there is no reason not to have it take a look around your machine.

      Again, if any Mac does something more than once, look, there is almost certainly something that needs your attention and even in the days of Snow Leopard there were protections in place its just that they weren't as visible. I am currently using Yosemite which is supposedly beta software and it has been running non stop on my Mac Pro for more than three months without a hiccup.

      It would be great if you posted the name of the app and a screenshot of little snitch; at least we can all avoid that app.

      One last thing: I, for one, am glad that there is no option to have Gatekeeper not ask again for an app. I want it to watch everything and shout out if it sees anything.

    26. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Please take your political correctness and kill yourself. make the world a better place...just kill yourself. Slit your wrists, suck on a tailpipe, find the nearest bridge and jump off it, the world would be better without you in it so for the good of humanity...kill yourself.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    27. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      Another vote for Little Snitch - definitely in my top five software packages for OSX. Indispensable.

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    28. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Showing your true lack of intelligence there hairyfeet.

    29. Re:Oh noes .. Reality field collapses .. arrghh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Showing your true lack of intelligence there hairyfeet.

      Just FYI, the term 'fag' used to refer to sexual orientation is an insult. It has a variety of other uses which do not involve orientation. So by some points of view your insistence on the word having to refer to orientation would make you the homophobic one. Especially since we're talking about reddit, where use of the term 'fag' is quite commonly used in ways which have nothing to do with orientation.

      Now, you can either allow the next generation to hijack the term BACK and change the meaning to a general insult, or insist on continuing to allow it to be used as an insult for orientation. The former would, in my mind, be the better option. Or to put in in reddit terms "shut up newfag".

  7. What now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) how do I know I have it?

    2) how do I fix it?

    3) how do I prevent it?

    1. Re:What now? by DavidCBillen · · Score: 1

      For #1, the article suggested that if you have it then your machine will contain the file /Library/Application Support/JavaW/com.JavaW Guess I'd at least try getting rid of it for #2. No hint on #3 :(

    2. Re:What now? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      dr web is saying their MAC antivirus will now detect it http://news.drweb.com/show/?i=...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    3. Re:What now? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      dr web is saying their MAC antivirus will now detect it http://news.drweb.com/show/?i=...

      Does their "MAC antivirus" only detect it if it is there, or does it detect it whether it's there or not? Most Mac "anti-virus" software is just scareware that will find viruses whether they are there or not.

    4. Re:What now? by andreicristianpetcu · · Score: 1

      It's the same with Windows :D

  8. solution? by shortscruffydave · · Score: 2

    The backdoor applies the MD5 hash function to the value and sends a query to reddit.com. The query template is as follows: https://www.reddit.com/search?... Here MD5_hash_first8 is the value of the first 8 bytes of the MD5 hash value from the current date. The reddit.com search returns a web page containing the list of botnet C&C servers and ports published by criminals in comments to the post minecraftserverlists under the account vtnhiaovyd.

    So...get Reddit to nix this query and deny the functionality to the botnet?

    1. Re:solution? by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Nix their entire search query?

    2. Re:solution? by Grantbridge · · Score: 1

      It's not like their search function works particularly well anyway....

  9. I have seen some malware trying to infect my Mac by ruir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And to get it you have to be fairly dumb. Fake sites for subtitles that just propagate your google query to "match" the name of the film you are search, and instead of giving you a zip with the subtitle, return a dmg file. But then, you have to click on it, click to install the binary, and give a password....So as I say you have to be pretty stupid to install the malware yourself.

  10. You're covered ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Funny

    ,,, we're working on global worming.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  11. Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://news.drweb.com/show/?i=5976&lng=en

  12. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And since the average mac user thinks their machine is impervious to viruses...alot of them would see no issue in running it

  13. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by ruir · · Score: 3, Informative

    Viruses and malware are two different beasts altogether.

  14. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    And this differs from the average user of every other consumer or business platform in what way, again? I mean, average Windows or Android users may not "think their machine is impervious to viruses", but they seem to "see no issue in" downloading random "music" or "videos" or "software" from even the skankiest sources.

    It used to be that a combination of perhaps-somewhat-better security design and low platform population kept Mac users relatively safe even in the face of "average" ignorance and complacency. They're probably still safer than they would be on Windows (perhaps even Android), because they're still a bit of a niche market, but the margin continues to narrow.

  15. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by gnasher719 · · Score: 0

    And this differs from the average user of every other consumer or business platform in what way, again? I mean, average Windows or Android users may not "think their machine is impervious to viruses", but they seem to "see no issue in" downloading random "music" or "videos" or "software" from even the skankiest sources.

    As an example, I recently started getting quite a few emails with a .zip attachment, and inside a .doc.scr file, which is (I guess) a windows screen saver. Obviously this doesn't work on my Mac, but if it did work, I'd have to unzip manually, ignore the highly suspicious .doc.scr extension, launch it, and then wilfully ignore two warnings that my Mac gives. Not sure if it gets unzipped automatically on Windows, but I think Windows would show a .doc extension, and at least on older Windows versions this will be a lot easier to launch successfully.

  16. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by ruir · · Score: 1

    The "niche market" is a myth and forgetting history. OS/9 had a lot less margin of adoption and market, however as it was a shitty OS, had as much or more viruses than the alternatives. As far as I remember something in the line of 30 000 viruses as much as I recall.

  17. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Megane · · Score: 1

    as it was a shitty OS

    It was a pretty damn good OS... for the 1980s. When it was new, PCs were still using MS-DOS 2.x or so.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  18. To the hecklers... by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a common believe that Macs don't get viruses or could, possible, be susceptible to malware. This week, we have seen several issues that first threaten the *nix community (which, OSX is built upon). The first was the bash bug. The second is a worm that is capable of infecting a Mac system. A few months ago, we had Heartbleed that again, was cross platform.

    Yes...the Bash Bug - affects *nix machines including Macs. That means the Linux user is just as exposed. It does mean, in this particular instance, that Windows users get a break.

    The Mac, link linux, has proven relatively immune to computer viruses. How many people do you know run anti-virus and/or anti-malware software on the linux desktops or servers? Exactly. The Mac is built on top of an *nix core, but is far more usable by the average user. However, when the built in safeguards are disabled, it's possible to install malware. And, it's very possible that the attack vector is an exploit of the bash bug. We don't know the method or attack vector used to infect those machines (in either of the two articles on Dr. Web). Likely, users downloaded and installed an unsigned OSX application which, unlike having to jailbreak your phone, is easy to do. That unsigned app carried and installed the worm. I say" likely", because we just don't know enough yet.

    For those who aren't aware, Apple has a app store for OSX apps in addition to the iOS app store. Like it's counterpart, apps are checked by Apple and are digitally signed. A developer must belong to the Macintosh Developer network to sign their apps and have them sold through the app store. You always have the option to install apps from other sources, but they are unchecked and unsigned. And, you take your chances, just as on other platforms, if you download and install unknown code.

    Apple has taken a beating these past couple of weeks on multiple fronts. The Apple haters are in full force. But, in this case, we don't know how the malware/worm was installed. So, is it fair to bust Apple's chops over it without knowing the root cause?

    1. Re:To the hecklers... by mlts · · Score: 1

      More details would be useful. Is this a Java hole, or is it just another Trojan such as when there was a pirated version of iWork out a few years ago (when it was a paid product?) Is it even a hole in Safari or another browser which gets a user's context? This seems unlikely because of the SeatBelt facility which uses sandbox_init() to keep the Web browser contained so a malicious process wouldn't be able to do much even if it got root access via the Web browser's context.

      One reason why Linux and Macs have been pretty clean is the use of stores or repositories. It is the exception rather than the rule for a Linux user to have to fetch something and run it manually as opposed to grabbing it via yum or dpkg from a repository. Similar with Macs and Apple's store or even the mac-ports repository. Windows has always had the users fetch software from the vendor's website (even now, as Metro apps are next to useless for a lot of tasks), so there isn't any real active gatekeeper between the software maker and the user, while with other operating systems, there is a curator who at least makes a token effort to test things, or will actively pull a package should a problem arise.

      I'm personally neutral on Apple (like and hate the company), but I wonder what the exact vulnerability is here. I doubt it is ShellShock, because an external process would have to have access to bash for it to be exploited.

    2. Re:To the hecklers... by roballred7050 · · Score: 2

      Gatekeeper actually has three levels. Most restrictive only allows app store. Default allows App store and signed apps from known developers. To install unsigned apps, you have to disable Gatekeeper, with a warning about possible risk.

    3. Re:To the hecklers... by sudon't · · Score: 1

      The Apple haters are [out] in full force. So, is it fair to bust Apple's chops over it without knowing the root cause?

      This is a rare opportunity. Jeez, let them enjoy themselves a little.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    4. Re:To the hecklers... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Isn't Java not installed by default since the last few OS X versions anyway? You can get by just fine without Java, Flash and Silverlight these days.

      You don't really need Java for most websites in 2014.
      You don't need Flash since YouTube has HTML5 support.
      You don't need Silverlight if you watch Netflix on your iPhone/iPad/Apple TV/etc.

    5. Re:To the hecklers... by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      To install unsigned apps, you have to disable Gatekeeper, with a warning about possible risk.

      No, you don't. Just control-click in Finder, and choose "Open". That, unlike the normal double-click launch, bypasses Gatekeeper's prohibition on untrusted apps, instead presenting a security dialog that tells you that the app is untrusted, and asks you if you want to launch it anyway. If you tell it to do so, OS X computes a checksum for the app and adds hat signature to a list of trusted apps, ensuring that you won't be prompted about it in the future.

      You might have to be in the "Mac App Store and identified developers" mode—I'm not sure.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:To the hecklers... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And, it's very possible that the attack vector is an exploit of the bash bug.
      That is very unlikely. If you already have downloaded my malicious code and you are already running my malicious code, why should I need a bug in a shell to do my malicious deeds?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:To the hecklers... by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Macs have never been immune to viruses.

      the reason windows needs AV protection to run safely is because one account can overwrite critical OS files replacing them with malware infested fake software, and everyone by default starts out with ability to install any program including malware that later will get the special administrator privileges (on a reboot) needed to permanently infect the machine.

      heartbleed and shellshock are nasty but a well hardened install will not be a problem, as the users dumb enough to install bad software generally need to ask someone to do that for them. and yes i realize they can run any command and possibly as root with shellshock if your cgi-bin is running things as root. seems to me that with Apache needing to run things as user Apache or httpd it was quite the oversight to let cgi-bin run as root in the first place!

    8. Re:To the hecklers... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Shellshock, the "bash bug" won't affect the majority of Mac users and Linux users. It requires you to be running a CGI server or have SSH access. Two things that, by default, certainly won't happen on a mac and unlikely to be the case on many average user Linux machines especially if their main machine is a laptop. It's more of a concern because it could mean your data on websites like your bank could be in trouble rather than someone getting into your own machine.

    9. Re:To the hecklers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shellshock, the "bash bug" won't affect the majority of Mac users and Linux users. It requires you to be running a CGI server or have SSH access. Two things that, by default, certainly won't happen on a mac and unlikely to be the case on many average user Linux machines especially if their main machine is a laptop. It's more of a concern because it could mean your data on websites like your bank could be in trouble rather than someone getting into your own machine.

      well, no, it requires that something on your system does this, which is very different..

    10. Re:To the hecklers... by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      Macs have never been immune to viruses.

      the reason windows needs AV protection to run safely is because one account can overwrite critical OS files replacing them with malware infested fake software, and everyone by default starts out with ability to install any program including malware that later will get the special administrator privileges (on a reboot) needed to permanently infect the machine.

      heartbleed and shellshock are nasty but a well hardened install will not be a problem, as the users dumb enough to install bad software generally need to ask someone to do that for them. and yes i realize they can run any command and possibly as root with shellshock if your cgi-bin is running things as root. seems to me that with Apache needing to run things as user Apache or httpd it was quite the oversight to let cgi-bin run as root in the first place!

      Windows 7 has reduced our helpdesk calls from 15-20 a week to 1-3. Just having UAC enabled goes a long way. This is on roughly 60k people.

    11. Re:To the hecklers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Apple is relatively low hanging fruit (no pun intended) because it's users are largely a pack of drooling idiots

      Sort of like YOU, then.

      You can't even use an apostrophe correctly, you semiliterate piece of
      subhuman waste.

    12. Re:To the hecklers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to that, it requires the the Linux machines be using bash as the shell for those CGI servers. I know at least the Debian replaced bash with dash back in the days of Squeeze (2011), and that this shell is assigned by symbolic link to /bin/sh which is the default shell for all services set up. It would require manual editing of service shells to open a vulnerability to this exploit. I don't really use other distributions, so I can't say for them, but I can't imagine any distribution maintainer in their right mind would use bash as a default shell for non-interactive sessions (services). Without even considering the exploit, bash just has way more overhead than other leaner shells and doesn't really offer useful functionality to a non-interactive service.

      The only thing that invokes bash on my systems are various #!/bin/bash shell scripts which are not network accessible. Definitely still a monster lurking in the shadows, but at least it seems to be behind bars for now.

  19. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    30k viruses when Symantec listed 65,000 for windows. So MacOS 9 was half as shitty as Windows XP.

    MacOS 9 had the best audio software before windows: Vision, Cubase, Pro Tools, ReBirth all perfected on Mac before porting to Windows.

  20. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people putting out the viri and malware know that their target market is the stupid people. Just like those "call in the next thirty minutes" ads on the radio that only complete idiits would bite on. The list of said cretins is solid gold for other campaigns and swindles. Anybody dumb enough to use MacOS before the NeXT Step takeover was bound to be ripe for exploit.

  21. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by cycler · · Score: 1

    To clearify,

    if Windows is set to not show extensions your file would be shown as $filename.doc
    Random user wouldn't notice and think it is a Word document and double-click on it.

    /C

  22. Re:I have seen some malware trying to infect my Ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That has been going on with warez as well for a long time. Hit Google with a software title, and some sites will offer you the ability to download it, regardless of version. Except that if your brower's user agent says Windows, you get a .exe, Mac, you get a .dmg.

  23. Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    > There is really no information here. How does it spread?

    You're using a Mac. You don't need to know *how* it works. It just works and is pretty! Cheer up!

  24. Quite useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this an article about how it's spread, or is this the website that it's spread from?

  25. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by mlts · · Score: 4, Informative

    OS9? When System 7 was out, MS-DOS was at 5.x, and Windows was at 3.1.

    Before OS X, MacOS was getting pretty shaky. It had no preemptive multitasking ability (well, except for A/UX and that was a completely different animal), which meant that any program that didn't use WaitNextEvent() often would hang the box, forcing one to reach for the debug/reset switch or power off button. It did show how relatively robust HFS (not HFS+, HFS) was because it handled dirty restarts quite well.

    In fact, at that era, restarts were a matter of course. If you had to get a project done, restart beforehand, restart afterwards, and maybe a restart every few hours on a prophylactic basis.

    OS X was a major upgrade. It didn't just fix problems with Macs that were issues since the MultiFinder days of System 6, but added real security and user separation which previously could only be put in place by third party software and various hacks (using PBSetCatInfo() to hide folders, etc.)

  26. Re:but but but.... by kthreadd · · Score: 2

    There are many types of malware.

  27. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Wookact · · Score: 1

    Remember we are talking about average users. I work with a lot of average users and the term virus and malware is interchangeable to them.

  28. Re:I have seen some malware trying to infect my Ma by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    If a subtitle comes in a zip by itself instead of a plain text document, you are doing it VERY WRONG. There is no legit reason to zip up a text file like that.

    --
    Good-bye
  29. Re:I have seen some malware trying to infect my Ma by ruir · · Score: 2

    I see you are not used to download subtitles. While I agree entirely with you in the theory part, however thats how many prominent sites are delivering them nowadays. Maybe because they often put there extra file with credits, and more rarely, multi-language subtitles packs.

  30. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by ruir · · Score: 1

    yeah, and by the early 90s was a piece of garbage. I remember fairly well using from DOS in XT to several Unix variants, later (or not so later) on more potent hardware, including SCO V.

  31. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    So are the computer, CPU, and hard drive, but people use those terms interchangeably.

  32. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, malware is a broad category term that includes virus, worms, Trojans, rootkits, etc. And the old virus vs trojan distinction isn't really relevant with modern malware. The old school virus is not the threat today on windows either, and trojans etc have virus like capabilities, like silent drive by install (see Osx flashback trojan) and distribution

  33. They probably don't know how it spreads by FellowConspirator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A regular user process is not going to be able to create the sub-directory in Application Support or install the launchd file to auto-start the service. For that, you'd need admin privilege, which has to be given explicitly by a member of the admin group. To get there, it has to trick an admin user to explicitly install it (in which case, it's not a worm/virus, it's a trojan), or it has to remotely trick an OS X application that runs as root or has admin privilege to do so -- but there's not much opportunity there as most services don't accept incoming connections, and those that do generally generally run as an unprivileged user. Looking at my Mac, the only service that can be connected to remotely and has sufficient privilege (if enabled) is SSH. Macs don't have that enabled by default.

  34. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    There should be no problem downloading DATA from the skankiest sources. The very idea that anyone needs to be paranoid about that sort of thing just demonstrates just how badly things have gotten both with platforms and the level of ignorance we expect out of end users.

    There should be a clear line between data and programs. Operating systems should enforce it and end users should be aware of it.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  35. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    ...and the OS should have promptly informed them that they were about to run a program.

    HELL, the OS probably should have informed them that the file was named in a suspicious fashion likely to cause confusion. Something like ".*." should be easy enough to spot and be on the lookout for.

    The file is obviously suspicious. It does not require strong AI in order to see this.

    This little bit of nonsense has been a problem for so long that Microsoft should have adapted to deal with the situation by now.

    It also highlights the stupidity of hiding file extensions.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  36. Odd... by DaCo · · Score: 2
    Okay, I was curious about this one. According to the article here, they:
    1. 1. Work out the number of days since January 1st, 1900 (it doesn't say that explicitely, but gives tm->tm_yday + 365 * tm->tm_year). Today, that would be 41883
    2. 2. Work out the md5 hash of that, which would be ffeac4e88ea3d3c65678fcd434a65f83 for today
    3. 3. Truncate it to eight bytes, so ffeac4e8
    4. 4. Search it on Reddit with https://www.reddit.com/search?...

    That gives no result, neither does the previous day (4cb43551) or even a couple of days ago (7b6461c8), so what gives?

    --
    DELETE MY ACCOUNT
    1. Re:Odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At step 3, try the low order 32 bits.

    2. Re:Odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... because the researchers contacted Reddit and had them block/delete the botnet C&C there already.

  37. I started reading the summary, and BAM!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another reddit story... It's becoming more frequent. I'm tellin' you people, time's almost up, bid farewell to Slashdot.. :-(

  38. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Vokkyt · · Score: 1

    Eh, most probably couldn't. If it's not a trusted developer, by default they cannot install it (a la apt-get or other package managers). They would have to have the known how and awareness to go in and change it to accept all installers, which I don't think many will.

  39. Link on how to check if infected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To check to see if you are infected, go to the Finder and choose 'Go to Folder' from the 'Go' menu. Copy the following path and paste it into the window that opens: /Library/Application Support/JavaW
    Then, click the 'Go' button. If you just get a beep, and the window displays a message in the bottom left corner that the folder can’t be found, then you should be okay.

    source: http://www.thesafemac.com/dr-web-announces-new-iworm-malware/

    1. Re:Link on how to check if infected by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      Or, launch terminal, navigate to the application support folder, and see if the file is there. You know, like a real man.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  40. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by antdude · · Score: 2

    Aren't viruses parts of mal(icious)wares?

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  41. Well since it pretends to be java by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this might be a step up from actually having javaw instead

  42. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    so are disc drive and coffee tray :)

  43. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    And since the average mac user thinks their machine is impervious to viruses...alot of them would see no issue in running it

    I think you will find the average Mac user is more intelligent than that. The less technical inclined see two rather dire warnings which would stop them. The more technical inclined know the difference between "trojan" and "virus" and don't even need the warnings.

  44. Re:but but but.... by tigersha · · Score: 1

    And the control software has a real slick UI

    Which reminds, me, I have go patch my Macs...

    --
    The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  45. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's good to note for the uninformed, though, that old MacOS is a completely different codebase from a completely different source than OS X. It's not like they went through some internal process and evolved MacOS into OS X and it's some sort of continuation. Steve Jobs left and founded NeXT computer, which sold graphical workstations with a totally new OS (NeXTStep), which was a Unix derivative in terms of design, API, etc based on a core from BSD. Later, when Steve returned to Apple, he brought NeXTStep back with him. They rebranded and rejiggered NeXTStep a bit and then started calling *that* OS X. The old Mac codebase died and was replaced; it did not evolve.

  46. Re: but but but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's joking.

  47. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by macs4all · · Score: 0

    ...and the OS should have promptly informed them that they were about to run a program.

    HELL, the OS probably should have informed them that the file was named in a suspicious fashion likely to cause confusion. Something like ".*." should be easy enough to spot and be on the lookout for.

    The file is obviously suspicious. It does not require strong AI in order to see this.

    This little bit of nonsense has been a problem for so long that Microsoft should have adapted to deal with the situation by now.

    It also highlights the stupidity of hiding file extensions.

    Actually the dialog that would have popped up would warn that it was downloaded from the internet, and would have supplied a link to the URL.

  48. Probably capable of more than Reddit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You should read the book "Daemon" (and the second part, "Freedom") by Daniel Suarez. The founder of a video game company sets up a system that went into action when he died. It spread thousands of individual daemons all around the internet and they all just watch for news stories with certain phrases to trigger activities.

  49. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    This works because Windows hides file extensions by default. (I change this on my boxes.) It also handles Zip files as if they were folders. So you would (if you took all the steps the virus author hopes you'll take) download "Really_Important_Document" (with the .zip hidden), open it up and see "Really_Important_Document.doc" (with a .scr on the end hidden). Seeing this, you'd forget all about this hidden file extension stuff and say ".doc is a Word document, I'll open it!" Of course, it would lauch the Windows screensaver executable and infect you. Hiding file extensions might help some users confused by all that .xyz stuff, but it also hurts that same crowd who don't realize that the .doc isn't really a Word document because it is really .doc.exe. (Not that you should open random Word documents you are sent, but that's a different topic.)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  50. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    As a web developer, I *NEVER* trust the data. Especially if it's coming from an untrustworthy source. And the most untrustworthy source is the user. ("Enter a number" "1; Delete * from Users") Of course, I build protections in my code to prevent this bad data from causing problems. I can't say the same for every program, though. Some programs will take bad data and turn it into an exploit. Yes, it is the program that is at fault, but you can't be too careful and shouldn't just trust something because it is "data" and not "a program."

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  51. Re:I have seen some malware trying to infect my Ma by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    I have Dl'ed subtitles in zip in the past, but there are other methods i choose to use instead. If the subtitle is zipped, it usually means people are forcing you to use a mechanism to suit their ends. It is plain text, there is very little legitimate reason to zip it unless you are trying to obfuscate or force an action (click a link, look at ads, etc). Multi-langs are easily handled with separate links. I dont support those kinds of models for distributing PLAIN TEXT, its dumb. Nowadays i just use the built in mechanism in XBMC ( on an isolated machine that only runs XBMC) to grab them without resorting to dangerous methods.

    --
    Good-bye
  52. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple is not a niche market. This isn't 2000 anymore.

  53. I am one too by CasaVacas · · Score: 2

    I found out early this morning that i had the malware. Deleted the executable and the startup plist file. I had not updated my os in a few months. So I did that. I am now backing up vital files for a reinstall. Sigh. Right before Yosemite goes final. So installs, installs. Backups, backups. Etc. I had a pirated a copy of photoshop cc 2014 from pirate bay. (yeah i am utterly broke and unemployed, and i had launched it only once to export one file to a specific format). And as far as i can see right now that is the only app that has the same'ish timestamp (in my apps folder) as the javaW binary from the lib/app support/javaW/ folder. In my case 31st of aug. So i have been compromised for about a month. I had the security settings set to Mac apps and identified developers only. So not completely opted out of the sandbox. I am tech/dev savvy, but not hacker-good. Is there a command for terminal that can show me every binary that has been updated since that date? so i can see if i should kill processes whilst fixing my system? Could google it but thought why not ask the "nice people" at slashdot. I lurked here for years. Posted a few comments, got called a retard for my non-native drunken-english, and never posted again until now. If you wan't to make up for it. Help me out :)

    1. Re:I am one too by CasaVacas · · Score: 1

      Edit (sortof). Rememberd i left out that i did upgrade bash from home-brew so not the "Shellshock" bug. Buyt after the aug 31 date

    2. Re:I am one too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is there a command for terminal that can show me every binary that has been updated since that date?

      This can be done with touch and find.

      Timestamps are in [[CC]YY]MMDDhhmm format. You may want to set it a bit earlier.

      For just the file names:
      touch -t 201408310000 ./testfile; sudo find / -type f -newer ./testfile -perm +111

      For more information:
      touch -t 201408310000 ./testfile; sudo find / -type f -newer ./testfile -perm +111 -exec ls -ltc {} \+

      To send that to a text file on your desktop:
      touch -t 201408310000 ./testfile; sudo find / -type f -newer ./testfile -perm +111 -exec ls -ltc {} \+ > "${HOME}/Desktop/modified_executables.txt"

    3. Re:I am one too by CasaVacas · · Score: 1

      Thank you so much! :) Will test this now.

    4. Re:I am one too by CasaVacas · · Score: 1

      Oh my god thats a huge list of files. i'll post a gist of the photoshop ones when complete so anyone can look for a suspect. If it will help i don't know. But TY again!

    5. Re:I am one too by CasaVacas · · Score: 1

      https://gist.github.com/emiler... And i did lie about pirating in my previous post! ahem... Not sure about the source of infection but as stated above, dates match.

  54. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    That's what he said, you have to be an idiot.

  55. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    The stupidity is using file extensions as file types. But that horse has long since bolted.

  56. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    Im not sure about MacOS9, i was off macs by then, but in System 7 days, DOS/Windows3.1/Win95 had tens of thousands of viruses, and Mac OS7 had literally about 7. I doubt it jumped that much in a couple years.

    Windows (up until XP) still had a DOS core. It was SO easy to write a Windows virus, almost trivial. Macs on the other hand had no command shell, so everything needed to be system calls. Also, it was a new processor, Motorola 68K to Intel `86, so machine code was different. Then, byt the time MacOS 9 came around, im sure it was pretty much all PowerPC. From what i heard, it was almost impossible to write shellcode for it.

    So, a huge influx of viruses for a hard to hack processor when the ease and profit was in the Windows arena? I doubt it.

    Not saying that OS9 was great. It wasn't. Read the whole mess about Copeland and Taligent if you want to read about how NOT to run a company. But the virus problem wasn't the issue.

  57. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by ruir · · Score: 1

    check your data please. It was a Motorola, and very common at that time. It is easy just to invent stuff.

  58. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, malware is a broad category term that includes virus, worms, Trojans, rootkits, etc. And the old virus vs trojan distinction isn't really relevant with modern malware. The old school virus is not the threat today on windows either, and trojans etc have virus like capabilities, like silent drive by install (see Osx flashback trojan) and distribution

    Very true. Versions of Mac Flashback installed without any user intervention, just visiting a web site (something most Mac users still thinks happen only to Windows users). And it infected 1% of Mac users (!) more than any single Windows malware in modern times!

  59. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed, although I would say that NeXT bought Apple for very cheap (negative money).

    I mean Steve Jobs remained in the seat as CEO of NeXT (now rebranded as Apple).
    The operating system NeXTStep was rebranded as OS X and become their main operating system.
    In fact most of the Cocoa API still bear the initials NS.

  60. Have fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you Apple using underwear skid marks who thought there was no possible way you could be exploited should rejoice. You now have all the features of windows!

  61. Re: but but but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea, can you tell me how to remove the malware called iOS from my smartphone? It's blocking me from getting anything useful done.

  62. Re: I have seen some malware trying to infect my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    injections have been around forever and are well documented on how to sanitize and scrub your data before you send it to the database. remember bobby tables ;)

  63. The amusing part is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So one piece of malware seems to be working today on OSX.... There were probably a couple hundred new malware exploits written for windows...
    Hmmmmm...

  64. Re:but but but.... by CauseBy · · Score: 1

    The article specifically states "the researchers didn't mention how the malware spreads" so we don't know for sure, but if you're a sporting type then I'll bet you $5 that it isn't a virus. I bet it's a trojan. Trojans do not reflect on the security of a system.

  65. Is nobody taking this seriously at ALL? by doccus · · Score: 1
    I mean, WTF?This is ane of the nastiest pieces opf malware I've seen in a while, and since all the macs are almost guaranteed to be unprotectyed, it's a problem. And why absolutely no mention of a cure> ALl the article says is the"botnet is currently dormant" Cold comfort for us Mac users. I havbe my firewall up and running, and run ClamXav because I pick up the latest TV episodes as I have no TV (I've got free Cable TV tho.. go figure). I always scan everything And all I ever get is some ancient HYML-CVE on a curry recipe I copy/pasted 5 years ago, that keeps showing up, but is entirely innocuous anyways. CAnb any program detect it.. Apparently it's a Java trojan

    "Unfortunately, the researchers didn't mention how the malware spreads, but they shared that it is unpacked into the /Library/Application Support/JavaW directory, poses as the application com.JavaW, and sets itself to autostart."

    and

    "UPDATE, 3 October, 15:00 PM CET According to Dr. Web researchers, the malware's propagation method is unknown. They received the sample from VirusTotal, and the code does not contain any indication that it's self-replicating.

    The botnet is currently dormant, as all the Reddit comments containing the C&C servers' IP addresses have been deleted."

    Both sources = (http://www.net-security.org/malware_news.php?id=2875)

    How long before they rewrite more reddit commands? And how to wipe it out wouldfd be, er, helpful, too... :-(