- Os X Trojan Paves Way For Mac Pro
- Os X Trojan Paves Way For Mac Free
- Os X Trojan Paves Way For Machine
Apr 16, 2012 - A new version of the Mac OS X Sabpab Trojan horse has come to light, and rather than relying upon a Java vulnerability - it appears to be. Removing the Mac Defender Startup Items 'Startup Items' on a Mac OS X system are configured by putting special 'startup' files in special directories on your Mac. Normally this is a good thing, but in this case, it's not. From what I've read the Mac Defender may put files in the following startup items folders on your Mac.
A new Mac OS X trojan has been discovered. The trojan, called OSX/CoinThief.A, monitors a users’ web browsing in order to steal Bitcoins.: The trojan, called OSX/CoinThief.A, is disguised as an innocuous Bitcoin app that purports to send and receive anonymous payments. The malware installs extensions in Safari and Google Chrome browsers, and then monitors traffic, looking for login credentials for various Bitcoin related websites.
When the app finds login credentials, it transmits the information back to the developer of the malware. Affected Bitcoin related sites include MtGox, BTC-e, and blockchain.info.
SecureMac describes how the trojan works: Initial infection occurs when a user installs and runs an app called “StealthBit,” which was recently available for download on GitHub, a website that acts as a repository for open source code. The source code to StealthBit was originally posted on GitHub, along with a precompiled copy of the app for download. The precompiled version of StealthBit did not match a copy generated from the source code, as it contained a malicious payload. Users who downloaded and ran the precompiled version of StealthBit instead ended up with infected systems. A user posting over the weekend on Reddit, the popular discussion site, (currently worth upwards of $12,000 USD) to the thieves. If you believe you may have been infected, check your browser extensions in Safari and Google Chrome for generic “Pop-Up Blocker” extensions.
Trojans don't rely IE vulnerabilities to get email addresses after infection. They can do the exact same thing they do on Windows on an OS X box once infected. It sounds like this trojan comes with a local privilege escalation vulnerability otherwise this also depends on users on Macs having root level access. It was only a matter of time before someone would target it. Whether more and more people target it is a completely separate issue. As a cross-platform user of all sorts of systems I generally prefer that things aren't targeted at all. I do enjoy the people saying OS X was inherently secure based on absolutely no knowledge of OS X's foundation finally being hit with the clue-by-four.
Now they can actually start learning what it is they are spouting about and present intelligent arguments which are always better than empty ones. Of course that may just be a tad bit optimistic on my part. No system connected to the outside world is 100% secure, does this in any way change my thoughts on OS X security? Nope, not at all because I always understood this problem as it exists on any platform which lets the user download and run software. I don't know about you, but if grandmagoldenshowers.com recommends that I download software, I do. If my operating system give me a detailed warning about the software that I downloaded from the porn site, I disregard it. And if I'm forced to authenticate the installation, I do.
Porn sites have given me hours of free orgasms at my desk, why wouldn't I blindly trust them? Oh and I also always give my credit card and social security number to Ebay when they're having problems with my account and they direct me to www.secureauthenticate.ebay.com. From the point of view of avoiding accidents, the safest cars aren't generally the ones considered or rated as 'safe'.
Avoiding accidents ('active safety') is an entirely different ball game to surviving crashes ('passive safety'), which is what most people think of when they talk about safety. If you want to avoid an accident, you want lots of grip, good brakes, minimal mass, good visibility and small size.
In other words, you want a sports car. If you want to survive an accident, you want large size and high mass.
In other words you (theoretically) want an SUV (theoretically because SUVs are not all built to the same standards as cars). I do enjoy the people saying OS X was inherently secure based on absolutely no knowledge of OS X's foundation finally being hit with the clue-by-four. Now they can actually start learning what it is they are spouting about and present intelligent arguments which are always better than empty ones.
Actually, it appears that your argument is the one that is empty. Getting ONE person to infect his Mac is not much of an achievement. With enough users, eventually you'll find one dumb enough for fall for any scam. What matters is how fast it will spread. So far, this trojan has demonstrated that Mac's are extremely secure.
The trojan is not spreading. Compare that with the Storm Worm. Of course that may just be a tad bit optimistic on my part.
No system connected to the outside world is 100% secure, does this in any way change my thoughts on OS X security? Nope, not at all because I always understood this problem as it exists on any platform which lets the user download and run software. And who is saying that 100% security is needed? Security is a PROCESS. Not an end-item.
All that is needed is for Mac's to have an infection rate that is BELOW the disinfection rate. The the viruses and trojans and worms will all die 'in the wild'. No need to make any claims about '100% secure' or not. It's the infection rate that matters. Does it spread faster than it is removed? If it does not, then it is not a threat.
If it is not a threat, then the Mac is still considered 'secure' by its user. Actually you completely missed my point entirely. Congratulations on your poor reading comprehension. No matter how secure your browser is you will still find people that download and run malicious software. That was my entire point.
It is irrelevant what platform the user is running because it's the same problem whenever a user is allowed to download and run software. You just seem eager to write this off trying to rely on OS X being magically secure when it does have its problems. I knew about this problem all along and so did most people that have any kind of security background.
If you give the user freedom expect them to screw it up. As for the infection rate, that does indeed matter but a trojan on a Mac is just as capable of scanning a Mac for email addresses and propagating further using the same mechanism as it would on a Windows box. There is nothing in OS X that magically protects the user from themselves. I've seen Mac users blindly click and even type passwords when it pops up on their screen. This problem is not unique to Windows users so matter how much you would like to blame Microsoft for this particular fault. Furthermore, IE7 and even IE6 don't automatically install software from websites.
IE 7 in particular is much improved in regards to security which is why it broke so many web applications. IE 6 you had to manually turn off ActiveX installations but you always had the ability, even in IE 4. Last 'argument', more of a question really, how in the world do you make the logical leap that this demonstrates that OS X is 'extremely secure?' As I said in my post, this has absolutely no baring on how secure OS X is as its a cross-platform problem. It is merely an illustration of the same problem encountered everywhere in every aspect of society. You can be driving the safest car in the world, if you drive like an idiot you will still eventually get into an accident. The two are loosely related so I understand the confusion but I would expect someone commenting on the security of a product to be familiar and demonstrate that familiarity and realize that this problem will continue to exist, that it was always there and has nothing to do with this specific exploit as there are hundreds of other examples which don't propagate on their own.
I monitor my network activity and I'm aware of trojans that crop up and over my admittedly not too many years of experience I've seen it on many more than a single occasion on OS X, Windows, and even various Linux distros. Until humans stop trusting one another which will be a horrible day this problem will exist.
It can be mitigated through education but the risk will always exist. Yes they can. But they still depend upon a browser vulnerability in that scenario. Microsoft's decisions with IE (ActiveX, 'integrating' it into the OS) means that the exploits are worse with IE than with, say, Firefox. While the ActiveX part is debatable, IE being 'integrated' doesn't make exploiting it inherently any more damaging than Firefox. There's nothing IE can do that Firefox can't (and in many cases it can't do as much, since in some configuration IE runs with decreased privileges by default).
Modern Macs may have few viruses, trojans, etc. (a 68000 based Mac is where I first saw a virus myself, but I know OS/X is much better.) However, I have also never seen a unicorn with rabies. A Mac virus won't spread via the 'net because the odds of a random connection leading to another Mac is much smaller than hitting a PC.
What I would find interesting is a multi-platform worm/virus (which would be easier with newer Macs being x86 based (are there 64 bit Macs? What's their RAM limit?)) Not something high level, like a Word-macro or Java virus, but something that when executing on a PC, keeps it's Mac payload as data, and vice-versa, maybe even using 'boot-camp' machines to cross bounderies. I think IPv6 may do a lot to reduce internet worms; first, by eliminating non-compatible worms, secondly, by making scanning the global IP address space take about 543950336 times as many probes. But address books and such will still be sources of targets. A Mac virus won't spread via the 'net because the odds of a random connection leading to another Mac is much smaller than hitting a PC. Would people please get over the idea that you need an infected Mac to infect another Mac?
An exploit is a package of bytes. You can send that packet of bytes from any machine running any OS, to any machine running any OS. My NetBSD servers get any number of probes that could compromise a suitably-(mis)configured Windows box. Botnet managers don't lovingly hand-craft their networks. They send out a huge number of attacks to potential targets, and collect the ones that succeed. If 99.9% of those attacks fail, who cares?
It's not like they're paying for the bandwidth, hardware, or electricity. If there was a vulnerability in the Mac OS that could turn the machine into another component of a botnet without requiring user interaction, the people creating botnets would be on it like buzzards on a shit-wagon. There is absolutely no technical limitation which would prevent the Storm Worm botnet from launching an attack against Macs if the chance of getting any returns at all made it worth the effort. So far, the security practices OS X has inherited from its Unix predecessors - which grew up in an untrusted network environment - have kept that from happening. The whole dick-measuring thing of comparing installed bases is utterly irrelevant.
This logic is flat out wrong. THIS Trojan does nothing to show a weakness in Mac OS X (compared to other systems in large scale use). Of course, we're only talking about this one - which is really an social engineering issue (the user is tricked into installing it - the OS doesn't install it, the user even has to type the admin password!) a different attack could be quite different. Thus far we've not seen that on Mac OS X, that's not to say we won't - just hasn't happened yet. That happening is no more or less likely today than it was yesterday.
There have been flaws in Mac OS X that could have allowed that, but the ones.we. (I mean us, not people inside Apple or people working to find such flaws in OS X for 'fun or profit') know about have been patched. Is this different to Windows? Possibly only in terms of scale, that is there.may. have been fewer such flaws (you know the really nasty ones that can allow something nasty to happen on a 'normal' box) or there.might.
be fewer people seeking 'fun or profit' on Mac OS X. Personally I think both are true, and that might explain a lot. I'm perhaps a little less inclined to think Apple fix these things.much. faster than Microsoft. Never the less the Mac is my 'weapon of choice' (most of the time). FWIW, I discoverd Parallels incudes a demo of Kapersky's virus scanner. Installing it on a lark, it discovered a 'proof of concept bluetooth stack' exploit when scanning the folders that Parallels shares with the guest OS.
I have no idea where it came from, and it looks like it didn't activate (the vector is, apparently 'you've received an OOBEX file exchange, do you want to accept it?' At which point it infects the system. I think our days of blissful ignorance are drawing to a close. That said, I don't beli.
Os X Trojan Paves Way For Mac Pro
Trojans don't rely IE vulnerabilities to get email addresses after infection. They can do the exact same thing they do on Windows on an OS X box once infected. It sounds like this trojan comes with a local privilege escalation vulnerability otherwise this also depends on users on Macs having root level access. It was only a matter of time before someone would target it.
Whether more and more people target it is a completely separate issue. As a cross-platform user of all sorts of systems I generally pref. I don't think one or the other is 'superior', but what worries me about Mac users is that they're so unused to stuff like this - security through obscurity, if you will - that they start to think they're invincible. Your average Macintosh luser is more likely to get hammered than your average Windows luser if you take into account a set control number of malware infections that require user interactivity; if you get the same trojan on both OSes, the average luser on Mac is more likely to go through the step. Your subject seems to suggest that you believe that now that there's actual a piece of Mac malware in the wild, things with snowball, and there will be more and more.
Is there any logical reason to believe that this is the case? In the latter days of pre-X Mac OS, there was some malware program or other released every year or three, but the rate never seemed to climb. Any Mac haters gleefully hoping that this is the start of a Mac threat environment similar to the Windows threat environment is probably going to be quite disappointed.
Suffering a little Mac envy? This trojan requires some serious effort to install.
Yes you have to install it. The Mac OS is doing exactly what its supposed to do, requiring you to authorize the installation of a piece of software, its software not a codec you are installing. Its easier to install Vista on a PC than this trojan is on a Mac. It depends more on ignorance of users not Mac security short comings. If this is the best theyve been able to do after all these years I feel better about OSX not worse. That a trojan is on an OS? Every OS can have a trojan on it.
A 'virus' takes advantage of flaws in the OS. A 'trojan' takes advantage of flaws in the user of the OS. You could have the most secure, bug free OS in the world and still a trojan could bring it all down like a house of cards. All it needs to do is fool the user/admin into giving it root access and WHAM, you're system is compromised. It's not the fault of the OS or any inherent flaws in the OS.
Hell, you could have a sheet of pape. That's an interesting straw man you've drawn up.
Personally, I don't know anybody who purchased a Mac because he or she thought it was somehow immune to all forms of malware. I agree with the parent poster in a sense. OK, they don't really 'deserve' to be infected, but there is a fundamental limit to what current computer security models are able to achieve. This infection doesn't occur through the exploit of some flaw in the web browser or OS X, it's pure social engineering. The malware gets installed just like any valid software package would; if the computer's administrator cannot be relied upon to intelligently differentiate between trustworthy and untrustworthy software, then all other technical countermeasures aside, there is absolutely no hope of keeping that system secure. Load of shareware as there isn't much proper software out there.
First off, shareware is a method of distribution, not a type of software. Most software that is called 'shareware' isn't. If being able to download and demo software for a period of time then unlocking it with a serial number is shareware, then Photoshop and Microsoft Office are shareware. Second off, I assume you mean software from small independent vendors, I'm curious why this type software isn't 'proper software'.
Lastly, you rarely 'install' applications in OS X, it isn't Windows. You can run them fr. This is an.insecure. default setting. BY DEFAULT Safari prompts you to allow downloading things like disk images from a remote website.
Then BY DEFAULT it asks you if you trust an application from wherever it came from - even allowing you at any time to revisit the web page it was downloaded from! Then after all than, if you choose to run the file in the disk image you are further prompted BY DEFAULT for an admin password. What exactly is the DEFAULT behavior that is wrong here? Should all ability for the user to download and install applications be removed? This is not a NEW 'exploit', I remember hearing about this same exploit in a different form at least a year and a half ago.
Apple had plenty of time to disable this feature What, the ability to download an run applications? I don't see what your complaint is on this one. Apple has made the system as secure as they can make it, at some point the rest has to be left to the user. Not quite, the only player i've come across which needs root access for install was real player (assumably for the DRM) mplayer, vlc, and even flip4mac wmv codec do not require root permissions. The reason this is not required is the way mac apps access libraries. The codecs in mplayer and vlc (much like the libraries in most other mac apps) are combined into the app, and therefore not shared among all users.
Each user has his own set (and configuration) and they operate in user space. Quicktime works similarl. One thing I noticed was that the more times a user has to enter their security password the more likely they become complacent and assume that any install is going to require it and any install that occurs is going to be safe. Basically what sunk later attempts by Microsoft to patch security. As soon as they added 'warnings' (aka popups) people got into the habit of clicking yes and thereby undoing any chance the programmers had at protecting users from being stupid. You can even blame this behavior on EULA's which require click through - people do this automatically.
As the Mac gains in popularity the numbers of careless people will go up and infections like this will occur more often. The key is finding a way to train the user that its WRONG. That or finding a way to have the OS run objects installed in some form of 'safe mode' for a time without letting the user in on it.
You are assuming something here: There is no incentive. Lots of Mac users are looking for the ultimate codec toolkit. Apple's Quicktime comes with a number but there are more out there and many are really hard to find and/or are Windows-specific.
I downloaded and installed Divx and the Divx encoder for some things I do. I use Flip4Mac's WMV codec as well as their professional tools (for things like MXF files).
And lots of Mac users have as well to get Quicktime to work with.WMV files as Microsoft stopped supporting us with their.WMV player. So, if one fools one's dupe with the come-on: 'It's a codec you need to view these files,' it's a pretty good scam.
All of the additional clicking and password-entering will be motivated by the same reason why the user downloaded and installed the codecs I mentioned above. I suppose the moral of this story is that one should not trust anything on a porn site. But in the Mac user environment where Mac users usually struggle to keep up with the proprietary Microsoft stuff, a codec download 'to see this' is not too far off-base. On a Mac, i believe you can get the Quicktime engine to have all the codecs you'll ever need by installing the free open source package perian.org and the free (closed source) macupdate.com, which covers the last few. Arguably, Apple should pre-install both of these packages - or variants thereof.
Now to get back onto the main topic. One could also argue that the Apple-provided Quicktime player sucks ass big-time - and of course that is very true - but that's easily fixed by installing sourceforge.net (also FOSS) - the other route is to ignore all the Quicktime-based solutions, and use something like videolan.org. None of the above will stop an uneducated and/or unsuspecting user from clicking their way through an installer (and giving up an administrator password) believing it to install something great/fun/useful. If you try too hard to protect the naive and/or foolish from their own actions when administering the system then you end up taking the route Microsoft have with Vista (and their earlier Windows, each to a lesser extent) - Are you sure? Are you really sure? Are you really really certain?
Can i get a password with that? Mac users are getting used to giving passwords during installs - bummer. (Mind you, they don't do it as quickly as the average Windows user/administrator can click Ok, Ok, Ok, Ok) Being honest though, i don't think naivety or foolishness really enter into the equation - after all, it's a social engineering trick driven by the simple male quest for boobies - a somewhat unstoppable force! 'In the Wild,' is laughable. How did the porn site 'get infected'? I don't think 'in the wild' means that the porn site accidentally got infected.
'In the wild' means that it is not within a controlled experiment or was not created specifically to be used within a controlled environment. The opposite would be a 'proof of concept' trojan that someone might use to demonstrate at a computer security conference. If it's possible for a Mac to get infected without the user's knowledge, then that qualifies as 'in. To get infected, you have to: 1) Go to a porn site 2) Download a plugin from the porn site 3) Click 'OK' that you are downloading a.DMG file. 4) Mount the.DMG 5) Go back to the Finder 6) Double-click the installer 7) Type in your account password 8) Click next a few times Calling this, 'In the Wild,' is laughable. How did the porn site 'get infected'? I'll bet anything that the porn site(s) in question know exactly what they are doing.
If the user is using Safari with the default settings, steps 4-6 aren't needed. I hate this ignorant attitude that unless something happens automatically it won't happen. Sorry, but most trojans go in the front door, not the back one (hence the name 'trojan'). Better than 90% of the infected computers I encounter are infected with something the user had to take an active hand in installing. One of my all time favourites was an e-mail virus. This happened after we installed our spam filter, which is also a virus scanner, so it was a surprise to us since installing it had dropped the occu.
Malware does not equal virus, iit does not 'break' into a machine through security holes, it hacks the wetware between the monitor and the seat, convincing them to consent to the install. It's impossible to make a machine fully idiot proof, but in the past couple versions apple has added 3 new 'nag' boxes to safari in attempts to warn people. Anyone who goes through that many screens deserves to have it installed. I don't install any media player or codec if it asks for root permission. Even flip4mac doesn't require full permissions. You drop the free component into your home's library folder and it runs in user space when websites call for wmv decoding. Malware does not equal virus, iit does not 'break' into a machine through security holes Actually a worm is the only type of malware that exploits are security hole.
Trojans and viruses really only differ in that a virus is a file infecter, ie it's going to append its code to legitimate executable file(s) existing on the system. A trojan is just malware pretending to be something it's not, much like the real trojan horse. Granted, much of the malware today are blended threats with some aspects of each, so. We're simply talking about social engineering. Windows, OS X,.BSD, Linux (and probably most other operating systems out there) are all vulnerable to this sort of attack, there's just little in the way of motivation to actually do it.
Os X Trojan Paves Way For Mac Free
The part where the dmg is automatically opened is the only thing that even resembles a vulnerability as such, though it should actually be filed under 'insecure default settings' rather than a vulnerability per se. This said, both linked articles are quite sparse with information regarding the actual installation. From my experience Safari should say something about the archive/disk image containing an application before actually mounting the dmg, and then prompting for an administrator password for the package to be installed. If either of these steps are compromised, you can call this interesting, because there's an exploit at work. If not, then it's a bog standard social engineering attack, to which every platform is vulnerable. The only news here are that you can't browse the web with your Mac in a completely carefree manner anymore, because there are some Bad Things out there targeting you. I've seen this story on several Apple/Mac related news sites yet, and the majority of the comments consisted of Apple apologists telling each other 'nothing to worry about, because you still have to enter your admin password'.
The type of people who will be infected by this will be similar to the types that get caught up in the 419eater.com scam. The only real reason this is news is because it's the first occurrence of an OSX trojan in the wild. Much like wikipedia.org, it's only getting exposure because it's the fi. And why does safari have the Open 'safe' files on by default, again? I don't get that.
Actually it used to be worse. Safari used to have a hidden pref that allowed you to open any file you downloaded, not just 'safe' ones. All it took was editing some XML prefs to add file types you wanted to auto open when downloaded. I used this to write a file browser that let me open various files after I downloaded them (like PSD's in Photoshop, basically stuff I actually found useful).
A few years ago Apple cut that. Looks like the Mac fanbois are abusing the moderating system again. And the terminology is semantics. Mac users have been exclaiming that there Macs are immune or resistant to malware for years now and saying that Macs are better than Windows because Macs don't get infected. Actually, the only people claiming that Macs are immune to malware, are people like you claiming others are doing so specifically so you can say these mythical people are wrong.
This is a case of a program not being what it claims to be, and using social engineering to get someone to install something, make it executable, authenticate as root, and run it. No different than a year or three ago when someone came out with a fake Office for OSX package they shared on the P2P networks which was really a shell script that removed files. Not a virus - this doesn't install itself.
A 'virus' with an install procedure which includes 'and then become root and run it' isn't going to have legs. apple.com And i quote '850 new threats were detected against Windows. Zero for Mac.'
Yes, it admits it's possible, it doesn't however, admit there are any. Wow, that's an astonishingly blatant use of creative quoting without context. Lets read the whole paragraph, unedited, shall we? By the end of 2005, there were 114,000 known viruses for PCs. In March 2006 alone, 850 new threats were detected against Windows. Zero for Mac. While no computer connected to the Internet will ever be 100% immune from attack, Mac OS X has helped the Mac keep its clean bill of health with a superior UNIX foundation and security features that go above and beyond the norm for PCs.
When you get a Mac, only your enthusiasm is contagious. A bit different than your out of context snippet this way, isn't it. How do the facts then agree with your claim that 'it doesn't however, admit there are any.' Says right there 'While no computer connected to the Internet will ever be 100% immune from attack,'.
It's almost like you figured nobody would check your claim to see how blantantly you misrepresented it. Well, let's see. You find this 'movie codec thingy' at a shady pr0n website (alarm #1), and it asks you to specifically download a.dmg file (alarm #2), install it with admin/root permissions (alarm #3) just to play a non-standard codec (alarm #4). Meanwhile, by comparison, there are a whole host of Windows nasties you can get just by, say, visiting a website with a rigged IFRAME in the page. QED: It's not a question of fanboys pooh-poohing something because it's their pet OS - it's a question of simple fucking logic. Come back and tell us about it when OSX (eventually) has an attack vector that doesn't require the user to be a complete and utter dumbass, please. Unfortunately with the rise in popularity of Macs, more naive users are adopting the platform.
Three friends who used to get a virus weekly, by trying to look at 'photos' people had emailed them are now on Macs. They won't give it a second thought, they could probably be conned into putting in their credit card number, social security number and sign over their firstborn, if the sketchy web site told them to. Granted an OS can only do so much to protect such users, but people don't blame themselves when th. The only thing worse than the fanboys are the haters that think this is the beginning of Apple becoming like Microsoft in terms of malware and security. If this was something that could, more or less, install itself purely by going to a website then I'd be worried and wonder what was up with OS X. Seriously though, if I download an rpm or deb in Linux and sudo to install it, there is nothing to stop that program from causing massive havoc if the author was malicious. The only way to secure a mach.
Os X Trojan Paves Way For Machine
'Sure, Russian porn site offering me 'free' videos ripped from US porn producers. I trust you to give me software to install in order to watch your video. Wait, I'm using a Mac - which ships with nearly every conceivable video codec I'd ever need to produce and edit professional video because It Just Works. What are the chances that Russian Mafia are one-up on Apple for a video codec I'd need?' 'Every conceivable video codec I'd ever need' except the few doozies: wmv, realplayer, and divx.
Like it or not these are widely used, and not just for porn. What's the point of installing anti-virus software when there aren't any viruses for the anti-virus software companies to write anti-virus software against? You can't really keep your anti-virus software up-to-date either if there are no viruses. Don't get me wrong, I'm not being a smug smart ass here, I'm just saying the anti-virus software has to know what it is attacking for it to be effective, but there is NOTHING out there for it to be programmed against (yet).
Or maybe I don't understand how anti-v.