Slashdot Mirror
Apple Has Shut Down the First Fully-Functional Mac OS X Ransomware (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Apple has shut down what appears to have been the first, fully-functional ransomware targeting Mac computers. This particular form of cyber threat involves malware that encrypts the data on your personal computer so you can no longer access it. Afterwards, the hackers request that you pay them in a hard-to-trace digital currency — in this case, bitcoin — in order for you to retrieve your files. This ransomware, called KeRanger, was first reported by researchers at Palo Alto Networks. They also noted that Apple has now revoked the abused certificate that was used in the attack and updated its built-in anti-malware system XProtect with a new signature to protect customers.
The difference is that all of the XProtect & related functionality can be disabled. It’s not easy to disable it (easy in the sense you’d stumble on it accidentally), and your average parent / grandparent user of Mac OS would never figure out how to disable it. Which is good, because they have no clue of the implications of doing so.
If as a trained and knowledgable IT professional, you want to run completely unprotected, you set some kernel flags in your EFI, and reboot. Execute whatever you like, overwrite anything on the drive as root, no questions asked. That’s probably not a great idea as the vast majority of the time those features protect even seasoned (or is that salty) professionals from shooting themselves in the foot. But if you really want to run something Apple has determined to be dangerous, you can still do it.
My opinion of Apple would fall sharply if they ever removed the disable options on their desktop OS. So long as that option is there, having it default to ON is the right option for the vast majority of users.
They'd make more money by patenting (and then actively trolling and/or comercializing) this revolutionary technology that can encrypt off-site backups.
Because your backups are off-site... right?
Take a look at System Integrity Protection in the newest version of OS X. it doesn't limit an app to its app corner, but it definitely limits it to userspace. A description from Ars (full page here:
System Integrity Protection does this by severing the automatic kernel-level blessing given to root’s commands. The end result is that in El Cap, root is no longer an account with effectively unlimited access to either the file system or to memory and running processes. SIP places kernel-level checks on root’s privilege that can (in theory, at least, until proven otherwise by an intrepid security researcher) only be bypassed by the kernel itself. SIP’s intention is to keep the operating system’s state—both on disk and in memory at runtime—as it was installed by Apple.
This is a pretty big change from how Unix-like operating systems are "supposed" to work, though it’s not without precedent (Ars IT Editor Sean Gallagher told us that SIP sounds a bit like Trusted Solaris, and this Quora thread has some details on the history of similar "rootless" privilege escalation schemes). Rather than adding yet another superuser account, SIP provides the concept of an additional file system and process flag, and file system objects and in-memory processes so flagged cannot be altered by processes not signed with Apple’s own code signing key.
There’s more, too—the file system protections are only the start. SIP consists of four major features:
Protected locations cannot be written to by root.
Protected system processes cannot be attached to with a debugger and cannot be subject to code injection.
All kernel extensions must now be signed (and old methods for disabling kernel extension signing are gone).
SIP cannot be disabled from within the operating system, only from the OS X Recovery partition.
Microsoft should adopt the same model.but it would require a herculean effort to get their products up to the same standard of quality.
What, you mean authenticating applications based on a central certification authority? Kind of like what this does: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-... . Or maybe you mean not allowing the installation of any applications that don't posses a preapproved certificate, in THAT case what you want is this feature over here: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-... . God forbid you would have to learn how to manage your own certificate chains, afterall the documentation is so difficult to find: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-... . The only thing missing is the paywall, which isn't really missing since you can pay for a third party authority to verify your certificate. But as we can see by the premise of this article that isn't actually a deterrent is it?
The difference between Microsoft and Apple is the same as it has always been. Apple forces you to follow their policies, Microsoft forces you to live with the consequences of the policies you wrote yourself.
Microsoft bows to Hollywood and the Feds while dragging its heels while users suffer from malware.
Apple tells the Feds to take a hike and focuses its resource to kill a nasty ransomware within a day.
Go Apple!
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10