Slashdot Mirror
Apple Cleaning Up App Store After Its First Major Attack
Reuters reports that Apple is cleaning up hundreds of malicious iOS apps after what is described as the first major attack on its App Store. Hundreds of the stores apps were infected with malware called XcodeGhost, which used as a vector a counterfeit version of iOS IDE Xcode.
Things could be a lot worse, though:
Palo Alto Networks Director of Threat Intelligence Ryan Olson said the malware had limited functionality and his firm had uncovered no examples of data theft or other harm as a result of the attack. Still, he said it was "a pretty big deal" because it showed that the App Store could be compromised if hackers infected machines of software developers writing legitimate apps. Other attackers may copy that approach, which is hard to defend against, he said.
Thirty-one years later, it's still worth reflecting on it.
I'm wondering how these apps made it through in the first place. Apple is known for being strict about vetting apps and what's allowed to enter the walled garden. If so many apps were able to make it past the vetting, it ought to raise concerns about what other malicious apps might be in the app store on a smaller scale. The vetting process probably lulls many users into a false sense of security that any app downloaded is going to be safe because Apple wouldn't let unsafe apps through. Obviously that's not the case, and it's not possible to know before downloading an app whether it's safe or not. Even reputable publishers could be compromised in this way. Although I think the walled garden is actually a good idea, it's obviously not sufficient, and there needs to be other layers of security. As much as I despise most antivirus software, it might be another good line of defense. I'd like to see more about app permissions like the old Android Market listing, and perhaps firewalling and only whitelisting certain sites for apps to connect to. It's reasonable that the browser you download would be able to connect to any site; that game, not so much. What's there now isn't enough and there really is no way for a user to know that an application is safe prior to installing it.
M-I-Z
kU still sucks!
Um, Xcode is free.
The only thing you pay for is the $99 to distribute applications (through the App Stores or within your organization) - writing and installing your own applications to your iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Mac, etc. are all free.
The issue here appears to be limited to developers that are downloading Xcode from unofficial sources which allows their code to become infected.
I print, therefore I am.
XCode takes forever to download in China
XCode, and everything Apple, takes forever to download everywhere. It's faster to download the CentOS "Everything ISO" (7GB) from a shitty ftp mirror in Egypt than to get XCode (3GB) from the global network of the wealthiest company in the world.
Wtf Apple.
lucm, indeed.
That's easy enough for everyone to figure out: It gives iOS users a more secure environment than the farce that is android today without imposing more than a tiny hardship on the vast majority of it's users.
I don't see this as being a major problem for iOS after this incident. Other than laziness there is no good reason for people to get their Xcode anywhere else than apple (as Xcode is a free download). AppDevs have now been warned that Xcode must be inviolate if they want to avoid their apps getting banned.
Now, what exactly was it that stopped you from making this simple deduction? Zealotry in favor of a rival platform perhaps?
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
The usual method of getting developers to install a backdoored version of an IDE is to make them think they are downloading the legit one. Infect their computers, MITM them. The NSA/GCHQ have many ways to do that, and few developers bother to check file signatures (do Apple even offer them?)
So far there is no evidence that the Apple way works any better than the Google way. Google scans all apps for malicious code, the same way that Apple does. You don't think that Apple employs people to decompile and check app manually, do you? If a human is involved at all, they are just there to make sure that the UI and content meet the Apple standards. Most apps don't appear to be human reviewed at all, or if they are the humans pay little attention and allow apps with zero functionality, or which clearly contravene the rules (e.g. there is a Playboy app, despite the prohibition on porn).
The idea that Android is somehow riddled with malware is nonsense. Where are the vast botnets that would exist if it were? The Play store seems to be just as safe as the Apple app store, from a user's perspective.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The usual method of getting developers to install a backdoored version of an IDE is to make them think they are downloading the legit one. Infect their computers, MITM them. The NSA/GCHQ have many ways to do that, and few developers bother to check file signatures (do Apple even offer them?)
Not only does they offer signatures, but the infected version of xCode will be refused by default unless you modify the default Gatekeeper setting. This is all the more ridiculous because you don't even need to register to download the legit xCode directly from Apple. And of course it's protected in transit by SSL.
Not sure what your FUD is.
[ Yeah, maybe GCHQ is clever enough to infect xCode and still pass Gatekeeper. But this case shows you don't really have to be that smart -- just tell users "you must click here to run this software" and they'll do it, even if that means disabling security checks. ]
No Evidence?
Really?
No evidence at all?
What would you consider evidence?
from http://www.itbusinessedge.com/...