Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

427 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obligatory Clarification (4, Informative)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312368)

Apple's security update include a new daily malware definitions update. So this is hardly the easy defeat that the description is hinting at. More like the beginning of a long drawn out war...

Re:Obligatory Clarification (3, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312404)

Welcome to the windows security world. it's the end of "it just works" and the begining of "it just works as long as you do X, Y, and Z right".

Re:Obligatory Clarification (3, Informative)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312464)

So far, I'd disagree with that. The malware detection is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating. So the user doesn't have to do X, Y, or even Z at all. We're still at "It just works."

Not saying that couldn't change in the future, but we're not there yet.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312488)

You'll always be at the nu'uh stage.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (1, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312518)

That would probably happen on Windows too if Microsoft is allowed to bundle MSE into the OS over 'OMGZ ANTITRUST" shouts.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (2, Funny)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312592)

Didn't the anti trust regulation period end a while back? I assume windows will become the garden of peace and prosperity any day now.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (1)

sangreal66 (740295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312664)

It only just ended 2 or 3 weeks ago (May 12)

Re:Obligatory Clarification (2)

teslafreak (684543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312816)

Also, just because they could now bundle it in, doesn't mean it is the best option. Since they had to let other people do AV, most people have their own now. It would be a bad practice at best to make all the machines run two AV systems, and people would cry foul if the software they paid for was forcefully removed. Microsoft isn't really able to solve it at this time, but it isn't really an incompetence thing.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (0)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312952)

Before Microsoft really started pouring effort into IE, most people had Netscape.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (1)

suutar (1860506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312714)

The oversight period for the big antitrust case of 10 years ago just ended. The EU still makes noises about antitrust suits whenever MS blinks too often.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (1, Insightful)

jesseck (942036) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312520)

So far, I'd disagree with that. The malware detection is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating. So the user doesn't have to do X, Y, or even Z at all. We're still at "It just works."

If Microsoft had it's way, the malware detection would be built into the system as well (think Microsoft Security Essentials), but anti-trust fears and a huge security software market keep that from happening. And, as with Windows, until Macs are malware-proof (which they aren't) you still need to do X, Y, and Z. Even with the latest Apple updates.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312626)

So the user doesn't have to do X, Y, or even Z at all. We're still at "It just works."

Not saying that couldn't change in the future, but we're not there yet.

Did you read the summary? "It just works." was one-upped within hours. Now the user is back to relying on knowing not to do X (fall for social engineering).

Re:Obligatory Clarification (0)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312630)

If Microsoft built MSE out of the box into windows they would find themselves in front of a court before it could run its first AV scan.

And MSE has updates every day. How long has it taken Apple to roll out an update? Oh, and it's self updating.

How is a process that runs invisibly ever a good thing? What do you do if that AV has a bug in it, or otherwise breaks things? How do you turn it off if it accidentally keeps frying something important?

I'm not sure 'built into the system' means anything. Calculator apps are 'built into the system' and I can live without them. It matters what AV products can hook into, which both seem to be adequate at.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312638)

I like it when my Mac has a problem. It's just another excuse to get on the phone with a hot Apple Care chick.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312776)

You keep a box of Trojans next to your computer just in case you want a hot chick to take care of your Apples, don't you?

Re:Obligatory Clarification (1)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313002)

Or a box of tissues...

Re:Obligatory Clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312812)

That "hot Apple Care chick" is really a guy with a high pitch voice

Re:Obligatory Clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312820)

let me guess, you believe the girls on the sex chat lines are hot too right?

Re:Obligatory Clarification (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312808)

maccodemonkey writes:

So far, I'd disagree with that. The malware detection is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating. So the user doesn't have to do X, Y, or even Z at all. We're still at "It just works."

Not saying that couldn't change in the future, but we're not there yet.

Okay, maccodemonkey, here's the thing: if the malware detection which is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating is defeated within hours of it being release, we are no longer at "It just works." What part of "It doesn't work anymore" sounds like "It just works" to you?!?

Re:Obligatory Clarification (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312942)

That's funny that you think inherently reactive, definition-based anti-malware software can do a decent job of preventing infection.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312484)

it reminds me when Nintendo released an update to Wii to get rid of Homebrew app (in version 4.1 or 4.2), but it (the homebrew) was changed enough to not be noticed within a week.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312790)

Ninty never kept up on it though; they'd go months without releasing patches like that.

Usually every time a big first party title came around there would be a 'firmware update.' Then, barring actual bugs or features (the exception), it'd sit there til the next big first party title.

Re:Obligatory Clarification (1)

CmdrPorno (115048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312616)

I can't help but wonder why there appears to be preference pane for this malware program and its update process?

Interesting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312372)

amazingmagicquerystring

Yeah! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312374)

Yeah!

first comment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312384)

first comment

Re:first comment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312546)

failboat

And this is surprising why? (5, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312386)

It's a new piece of malware, as far as definitions go. It will be blocked tomorrow when the tool checks for new definitions.

It still requires that you dismiss the "this file appears to be a file downloaded from the internet from [address], are you sure you want to run it?" dialog box. Plus, with no admin password it's local user only (which is still bad, just not root capable).

Alas, the arms race begins. At least it's only trojans.

Re:And this is surprising why? (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312486)

Local user can be mission accomplished very easily. For example, users with admin privs have write access to the /Applications folder. This means that malware can infect programs there with ease.

At least Apple is one step ahead with the App Store. I can see the "file downloaded" dialog be only available to admins only in a future rev of OS X.

Re:And this is surprising why? (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312906)

I don't believe so. Looking at random apps in the Applications folder, I don't own any of them. System does. Everyone else has read only access.

Re:And this is surprising why? (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312930)

Actually looking a bit deeper, some do show me as owner. It appears all of the system apps are owned by System. Most apps by 3rd parties are also owned by system, but those I packaged myself into DMG files for easier backup/installation are owned by me. I suspect my use of this type of backup isn't all that common though.

Re:And this is surprising why? (3, Interesting)

Angostura (703910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312496)

It will be blocked tomorrow when the tool checks for new definitions.

That's the interesting question, isn't it - the extent to which Apple has committed the resources to block malware effectively on a daily basis. It'll be interesting to see whether they can nip things in the bud sufficiently to dissuade the bad guys.

Re:And this is surprising why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312606)

It's not even a trojan. It doesn't "install" anything; doesn't touch any files on your HD; doesn't write to anywhere. It just tricks the user into supplying his/her credit card info, and that's it.

Re:And this is surprising why? (3, Informative)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312962)

Not surprising at all. That's how Windows works too.

Re:And this is surprising why? (0)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313008)

It's a new piece of malware, as far as definitions go. It will be blocked next month when Apple updates the definitions.

FTFY

Fanbois...3...2....1.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312388)

All the fanbois will now jump on to say "Well, it's been a decade and it's still better than windoze"...

I, for one, am enjoying this.

This just proves Apple was 'secure' because it has had very low share. Now it has become slightly more relevant and hell is going to break loose on the fanbois.

Re:Fanbois...3...2....1.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312410)

In the infamous words of Nelson:

"Haaah Haaah"

Mac Defender (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312390)

What a terribly misnamed piece of software.

Re:Mac Defender (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312442)

Hey retard, Mac Defender is the name of the malware, not Apple's counter to it, which I don't think has a name.

Re:Mac Defender (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312480)

Marketing Speak: there's no genuine advantage in it.

Yeah... (1, Flamebait)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312554)

It should have been something like iProtect, iAntivirus or AppleGuard or something.
What are they coming to when they can't even get their developers to use the proper naming scheme?

Just another proof that Apple is no longer a proper computer business but a shiny-pocket-widget and things-for-your-shiny-pocket-widgets shop.
Or was that a shiny-pocket-widget and things-for-your-shiny-pocket-widgets store?

iDiots and Appletards lack sense of humor. (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312972)

Film at eleve... Sorry... Film at iLeven.

How long (2)

Synesthes (1351729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312392)

I wonder how long it will take them to patch it this time. It almost seems like the creators of the malware were prepared and had something ready to go even before it was fixed.

Any first hand experience? (2)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312394)

the menacing MacDefender malware that has plagued users for nearly a month

My personal laptop is a Macbook pro, and I have only heard of this through the media. Has anyone actually seen this first hand?

Re:Any first hand experience? (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312432)

Yes, actually, from a link on Slashdot (national geographic Area 51 article) I knew enough to get rid of it.

Re:Any first hand experience? (3, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312446)

I have seen it attempt to get me to download it - I got hit by a google image search result where it showed me a "Finder" in Safari, with an almost convincing progress bar etc while it "scanned for viruses".

I didn't click the download button though.

Re:Any first hand experience? (1)

ugen (93902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312448)

I only heard about this too. I also only heard about Windows viruses and trojans even though I also own a number of Windows machines.
Bottom line - I don't expect my computers to ever be infected, but it's out there.

Re:Any first hand experience? (0)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312584)

My fiancée came across a page that automatically downloaded it two days before I'd heard anything about it in the media..

Seen it three times this month (3, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312688)

Usually while doing a Google image search. I was searching for everything from ships to aircraft, so this doesn't appear to be just a porn/warez problem.

Still, there's a major difference between this and Windows malware. The "Install me now" routine pops up, but you have to voluntarily enter your username and password for it to infect you on the Mac. You can become infected on Windows just by surfing the wrong website. But I suppose it's only a matter of time before the scumbag malware makers of the world find a way around that.

Re:Any first hand experience? (1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312702)

Translation: I'm a Mac user, so my head is firmly planted up my ass, and there it will remain, so I don't have to see my precious platform for what it is; as vulnerable as any other.

Re:Any first hand experience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312730)

One came into the shop yesterday for this virus. I wasn't the one working on it but I was curious so I took a quick look. I'm not sure if this is the case all the time, but in addition to the scare-ware this mac was also opening or redirecting to adult sites. The overall look of the app is pretty similar to the PC variants, one detail thing i noticed is the little red, yellow, green buttons up top are all grayed out. I don't know how much it limits your ability to use the computer however.

Re:Any first hand experience? (1)

imamac (1083405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312734)

I helped a few people get rid of it (very easy to do).

Re:Any first hand experience? (1)

Niris (1443675) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313018)

I've seen probably six or seven come in to Geek Squad with it. Super easy to remove, but it's out there.

The rabbit... (2, Insightful)

ugen (93902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312402)

Tommy: What's coursing?
        Turkish: Hare coursing. They set two lurchers – they're dogs, before you ask – on a hare. And the hare has to outrun the dogs.
        Tommy: So, what if it doesn't?
        Turkish: Well, the big rabbit gets fucked, doesn't it?
        Tommy: [pauses and thinks] Proper fucked?
        Turkish: Yeah, Tommy. Before zee Germans get there.

It's only downhill from here. Apple got itself a critical mass of un-skilled users sufficient to follow in footsteps of Microsoft. The price of popularity is quite well defined.

FROM: PC users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312420)

Welcome to our world.

Mac users, start crying from nostalgia (0, Flamebait)

xavdeman (946931) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312426)

Mac OS Update Detects, Kills MacDefender Scareware New MacDefender Defeats Apple Security Update ATTN. Mac fanbois, security through the obscurity of your OS, IS OVER. You're going to be facing the same, if not worse problems than Windows users have been battling for years. Worse, because your userbase expects things to "Just Work(tm)". And Apple has been marketing the impenetrability of their OS through the roof. Virus makers have finally risen to the challenge, and Mac users should cower in fear, for their lazy days are over*. *at least concerning OS security. Of course they will still be lazy college drop-outs and pretentious "hipsters".

Re:Mac users, start crying from nostalgia (3, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312576)

What viruses, as a matter of interest? Or do you mean trojans, which are not the same thing at all - which are an issue for any OS, regardless of security since it's a social engineering issue (less so for Linux I would imagine, since the user base tends to be skewed towards people who can spot a trojan from a mile off).

It's hardly just "security through obscurity" - you make it sound like OS X was designed like a car with the doors and windows unlocked, when it clearly wasn't. It's not perfect, but it is pretty good, and it does receive regular security updates in anticipation of attacks against it, it's just not until now that we've seen anything widespread, and even then it's been pretty limited - an ineffective trojan that is easy to remove (takes about 3 minutes total, or less) that requires you give it your express permission to install (and your admin password). The new one is modified to be local user only, so doesn't even have root.

It's not great, clearly, since any malware targeting your platform is a pain in the ass, but you're painting it like OS X has been sitting here doing nothing for the 10 years it's been around and only escaped by standing behind Windows - the legions of security updates and software policy on the OS itself would beg to differ.

Not that even the very best and most secure OS could stop this malware (having never "seen" it before), since it's entirely a social engineering security bypass. The conman tricked his way past your security guards and is stealing your TV.

This just in... (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312462)

Once an operating system reaches a certain percentage of the market share, it becomes a viable platform for malware. In other news, I have been using computers since the 286 days and I have yet to get a virus of any kind on any of my personal machines. Why? Because I'm careful. Malware only exists because people aren't careful. No operating system can prevent people from doing something dumb, so stop ragging on Apple (or Microsoft, or IBM, or whoever else you want to crucify) -- this is a problem with people, not software. Always has been.

Re:This just in... (5, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312504)

Visiting a website shouldn't be able to install malware on my computer. Neither should opening an email, Flash applet, Java applet, Word document, etc. These are all the faults of the relevant vendors.

Installing random unsigned binaries from the internet? That should be able to do absolutely anything -- it needs to be able to for computers to be general purpose tools. And that includes malware.

TL;DR social engineering is the user's fault, but sec vulns do exist and are not.

Re:This just in... (0)

ugen (93902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312550)

mod parent up

Re:This just in... (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312716)

There is also a threshold where a significant number of users are willing to type in their password whenever a pop-up dialog asks.

Re:This just in... (3, Insightful)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312784)

Right, people have been careless enough to go to a thoroughly reputable site that sells ads. People have even been so careless as to open email from frequent correspondents. (Both of those bit my wife, who's far from being ignorant or careless.)

Re:This just in... (1)

boristdog (133725) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312810)

I have been using computers since the 286 days and I have yet to get a virus of any kind on any of my personal machines

Obviously you don't surf the web while drunk.

Not that I ever...uh...er...

Re:This just in... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312904)

Maybe, maybe not. I'm definitely careful, and common sense is always the best first line of defense, but malware still gets through sometimes. Last virus to hurt me would've done the same no matter how careful I'd been. A normally-safe and trustworthy site got hacked (smbc-comics.com, for the record), put a malicious Java applet into the page. I happened to visit in the few hours before the site manager was alerted and fixed the problem. Virus broke through whatever security Firefox and Java (both fully updated at the time) had, and basically hosed my system with scareware and adware. Spent a whole weekend fixing it.

And there are, actually, some rare bits of malware that don't require human interaction at all. Worms quite often exploit software thoroughly enough to infect unattended servers. Although quite uncommon nowadays, since exploiting users is far easier than exploiting software, it's still completely possible.

Yeah, but .. (5, Insightful)

n5vb (587569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312478)

.. have they figured out how to install it without asking an admin user for permission?

Until that happens, it's not really a security issue, it's still a social engineering hack. And no platform is immune to social engineering hacks because there are always end users dumb enough to unlock the front door for whatever puts on a good show and let it walk right in and take over.

If someone figures out a way to bypass Installer and run unsigned code without at least throwing a warning, then I'll worry ..

Re:Yeah, but .. (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312544)

>If someone figures out a way to bypass Installer and run unsigned code without at least throwing a warning, then I'll worry ..

All it takes is one Flash, PDF or Java exploit. And God knows those are plenty.

Apple has to step up their game. (2)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312492)

Malware is a numbers game. Windows used to be the main player by a much larger margin and criminals knew that code over a poor or rare windows exploit generally infected far more computers than even some of the worst mac exploits.

As Mac OS gains more and more users (and similarly any other platform like IOS, Android, and *gasp* Linux) they become more and more vulnerable because rarer and rarer exploits still result in powerful botnets.

Apple has never been "virus proof," they just never had the numbers to make a lot of exploits worth the coding time.

Re:Apple has to step up their game. (2)

Vokkyt (739289) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312656)

Did Apple kind of shoot themselves in the foot with their "No Viruses/Malware" campaign? Yeah. (Nevermind that they never actually claimed you couldn't be infected...)

Is MacDefender a portend of Malware waves upon OS X? Unlikely, and it really has nothing to do with market share. I know this is a tired argument, but the "You're day is coming OS X, just wait until you're worthwhile to hack!" idea just hasn't played out no matter how many times security researchers shout it from their blogs/websites (often times alongside links to purchase Macintosh AV software).

A sense of reality is necessary here -- this isn't like Vundo or any of its variants. This Rogue AV is awfully polite and asks you to go through the standard OS X install process in order to get on the system. (Strange how Mr. Bott makes it seem like the program is just suddenly installed and active)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoogO_f6DLI&feature=player_embedded [youtube.com]

That's what you get to see when this RogueAV tries to get on the system. There's nothing automatic about it, there is tons of user input, and that's precisely why it's not much to get worried about as a Mac user. That's a helluva lot more work than simply viewing a flash ad, a PDF, or any other drive-by exploit that occurs on the Windows side of the world.

Now, I cannot stress enough that I'm not suggesting OS X is immune. But to say it's about to have the same level of infections as Windows? Not now, and not until the Malware folk come up with some grand exploit to get their software onto OS X as quickly as they can through Windows. It's not numbers, it's that it's a pain to do.

Re:Apple has to step up their game. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312750)

You have no proof, you just say it hasn't happened no matter how much people say it will. Using the word "unlikely" is hardly much of an argument or proof.

Apple is now at its modern peak in market share, and malware starts appearing. Seems rather consistent with the theory that it wasn't worth doing when there weren't so many Mac users. And directly contradictory to your theory.

Re:Apple has to step up their game. (3, Insightful)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312836)

Is MacDefender a portend of Malware waves upon OS X? Unlikely, and it really has nothing to do with market share. I know this is a tired argument, but the "You're day is coming OS X, just wait until you're worthwhile to hack!" idea just hasn't played out no matter how many times security researchers shout it from their blogs/websites (often times alongside links to purchase Macintosh AV software).

Of course it hasn't played out. Mac OS still only has a little over 7% of the market pinned down. Windows collectively (between XP, Vista and Windows 7) controls over 80% of the market. That means that besides smaller proof-of-concept exploits programed for fun, there is still very limited utility for mac malware in the wild.

All I'm saying is that getting from 2% to 8% market share will be much easier than getting from 8% to 32% and now that they're getting to almost an 8% market share, the first signs of malware are popping up.

I'd also like to say that while the 2nd MacDefender is indeed much more of a social engineering hack than anything, the first version did exploit a major bug which allowed root access without any additional permissions. Mac vulnerabilities are out there - and that one was a huge one so it was exploited, but look at the numbers - right now to get similar processing power or informational exploit pools, you'd have to have a hack that's literally 10 times as rampant on Mac than on PC.

It is and always will be a numbers game.

Re:Apple has to step up their game. (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312900)

That's what you get to see when this RogueAV tries to get on the system. There's nothing automatic about it, there is tons of user input, and that's precisely why it's not much to get worried about as a Mac user.

Just two clicks required to install malicious software after you've visited a hijacked site, with none of the usual warnings about downloading software from the internet that most platforms have added - with good reason, I might add? That's definitely a problem. Sure, no matter what you do there'll always be someone daft enough to jump through the hoops required to do something nasty, but making it that easy for websites to convince users to install software - and giving them that much control over the messages displayed - is just unwise.

Re:Apple has to step up their game. (1, Insightful)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312728)

To be sure this is not a virus. It requires full user cooperation to get installed on the machine, user has to explicitly download it and run it.

Re:Apple has to step up their game. (1)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312970)

While it is still a virus - I get what you're saying and the later version of MacDefender is only a social engineering exploit (Trojan) and not something that takes advantage of a legitimate exploit.

While that may be true, the original MacDefender did take advantage of a nasty root vulnerability that Mac OS had.

Even with that being said, Trojans are still a class of virus which will also become more popular as the market share increases. Trojans are just a phishing attack with code to allow access to the infected computer in some way. It's a class of malware that the computer savvy like most of Slashdot can avoid, but not a lot of people who expect their computer to "just work."

Re:Apple has to step up their game. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312882)

Their system like other Linux and Unix variants are more resilient to to malware based on design, yes I agree they need to do some focus on security now. But do not be blind and listen to the rumors it all about market share. IOS still has huge market share in smart phones and has had less security issues than Android. It is based on the Developer and Apple has a track record of making a more solid system even back in "the old days" with OS 9 etc. I am not happy about whats going on wither but if you are to have an opinion have all the facts as well.

Not for long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312514)

Should only be unprotected for a day at most.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4651

Re:Not for long... (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312814)

At most? Apple had exploited Java vulnerabilities that were patched by Sun for more than a year. What makes you think they can update things in a day, even if the capability is there?

Re:Not for long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312880)

Why would they need to worry about Java exploits when nobody uses Java.

Re:Not for long... (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312994)

At least 2 millions minecraft users beg to differ!

tempest in a teapot (1, Insightful)

spirit_fingers (777604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312528)

As far as the OS is concerned, this is just another application installer. It's a cinch to modify the installer to circumvent Apple's so-called security update for this. It really comes down to a user stupidity issue. If you're too stupid to avoid software from questionable sources you deserve what you get. No security update can protect you from yourself.

Re:tempest in a teapot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312610)

Not sure if the unwashed, stupid masses you're referring to will feel they deserved it. I wonder how long it will be before the first class action lawsuit for false advertising based on Apple's message that only PCs get viruses.

Re:tempest in a teapot (0)

spirit_fingers (777604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312758)

This isn't a virus.

Re:tempest in a teapot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312918)

Which is why Mac OS X is going to be turned into iOS - pretty soon, you'll only be allowed to install signed binaries on Mac OS X. It will resolve the issue of people installing software from "untrusted sources," meaning anyone not paying Apple large sums of money.

And for years Mac Users have been telling me lies (0, Troll)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312620)

I always found it amusing that Mac Users consistently told how secure their Macs were and how they couldn't get viruses or malware. I found it amusing since I thought Mac OSs has had security holes in them for years, but no one had an interest attacking a small user base. It seems as though those users and Apple are starting to eat their words since when Linux and Windows release patches for security they aren't defeated an hour later. Apple however should have seen this coming with their growing user numbers.

Re:And for years Mac Users have been telling me li (3, Interesting)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312786)

It is still amusing to watch idiots proclaim "menacing" malware something first of all that requires you to download it and install it on your computer and second even when you do it does nothing menacing to your system :D.

OS X still has 0 viruses, which what I care about. If someone wrote a virus for OS X, something that installs without my intervention and approval, then I would be alarmed. Otherwise, I don't care about the social engineering attacks. Idiots will always fall prey to those.

So yes, I still feel infinitely safer using anything but Windows as far as viruses are concerned.

Re:And for years Mac Users have been telling me li (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312876)

Don't act like it isn't possible it most definitely is possible. But no one has put the time in to write anything before because the user base is so small. As it begins to grow so will the number of exploits, however books are beginning to be put out on exploits in Mac OS and obviously the exploits are starting. I agree that this is completely user stupidity, but it slows that exploits are now being created to target Macs.

Re:And for years Mac Users have been telling me li (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312828)

While I'm not real impressed with what I know of Apple's security, this is a relatively small threat that relies entirely on social engineering that works or not regardless of OS, and is getting an immediate and effective response. It's too early to gloat yet.

Re:And for years Mac Users have been telling me li (1)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312932)

Why would you gloat? I've been very satisfied by security onn my Mac. If that changed and I got a virus, you would get pleasure from that?

where (1)

dwightk (415372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312668)

is it?

There is no protection against stupidity. (3, Insightful)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312718)

No software can protect the user from themselves. If someone is determined to download something and install it, how do you prevent that short of locking the system like iOS? I really don't want to see that happening to OS X.

Re:There is no protection against stupidity. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312818)

No software can protect the user from themselves.

An OS which doesn't allow the user to download and install random executable files can. Of course it's also not terribly useful for most users.

Re:There is no protection against stupidity. (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312864)

Every time you make the system more idiot proof, they invent a better idiot.

Obligatory (new) Star Wars reference: (1)

Shadyman (939863) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312732)

Begun the Clone Wars have.

Lion Mac App Store (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312788)

Some rumors about the eminent Lion features that will debut on June 6 include OS-level software installs through the Mac App Store. That would go a long way toward fighting the Trojan attacks on ignorant users.

The current "Software Update..." mechanism checks for updates at odd and unexpected times. So the legitimate demands to enter password credentials, right now under Snow Leopard, are not predictable. On the other hand, if notifying the user of updates is replaced with those little red badges on the Mac App Store app then the user knows that the request for passwords is done only at their request, rather than at seemingly arbitrary times. And if the Mac App Store mechanism is a protected channel, this will be more secure and predictable to an average (and maybe even below-average) user.

Apple still needs to turn off the Safari "open safe items after download" (or eliminate the option entirely). And it needs to create a mechanism to create a superuser account by default that users don't login and use by default ("Enter the name of your favorite superhero & a password for your super-user account."). Of course, they also need aggressive security testing and bug-finding stipends for white and grey hat researchers.

But if this game of cat and mouse gets back under control by Lion then there will still be a perception of being in control of the malware situation on the Mac (whether really true or not).

Re:Lion Mac App Store (1)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312980)

And it needs to create a mechanism to create a superuser account by default that users don't login and use by default ("Enter the name of your favorite superhero & a password for your super-user account.").

Security success! "my favorite superhero is '1234' and my password is 'password'," said 30 million Americans.

Welcome to the real world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312800)

Just wanted to welcome all the Apple fans to what the people in the real world have been dealing with for years.

It's nice to have you, you have about 20 years of security knowledge and best practices to catch up on but i'm sure a local Windows user can help in that regard.

Alternate department titles.... (1)

mark_anon (1416429) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312830)

From the "Infinity Loop +1 department."

Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312852)

I thought Apple's Ads told us that Macs didn't have to worry about viruses and malware... WHOOPS! :D

IQ test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312916)

This is just an IQ test. It still requires you to explicitly consent to it being installed! There's nothing that any OS vendor can do to prevent user stupidity. No big deal.

Turning off "open safe files" makes no difference - it still only LAUNCHES the installer - you must consent.

Running as a non-admin makes little difference - you can still wipe out your own stuff. Still, I make my relatives run as non-admins, so at least the damage is somewhat contained if they do something stupid.

my story - a VISTA user with this malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36312990)

I visited a website that ends with .RU .Every time I click on one of the menu buttons ,to move to the following subject, I notice that I moved to the following page PLUS downoading something.Finally I closed the website.Then suddenly a screen poped-up from nowhere and strated to scan my harddisk. Evertime I try to close it another one pops-up from nowhere to continue to scan. It was like a 3 ring circus. NOW, I realized that I picked up something from the .RU website.OK, I went to TASK MANAGER to kill the process. That did not work. I saw that it installed itslef on the TASK BAR. OK, I deleted whatever was there. That did not work. It installed itself again. OK. I made a quick search online. Some FORUMS advised to go under APPDATA/ROAMING and try to delete whatever was there that belonged to the malware. OK, that was not enough. Something was in the cash of the browser. I found many many small ,around 2 or 3, app 19kb each and I assume that their sole purpose was to call mother ship to download fresh copies of the malware to be installed (I COULD BE WRONG).After deleting all that: the ones under ROMAING + CACHE. I found that they planted themselves in other parts of the TASK BAR. That too was deleted. MY MAIN LINE OF DEFENSE was, and since I am working on VISTA as a USER that has no rights. So, when the MALWARE tried at first to install itslef. MALWARE ASKED FOR ADMIN PASSWORD. Of course that did not happen and I think that what really THWARTED THE MAIN ATTACK. I think the attacker in his design of the malware relies on the fact that most users ,on their own PCs/MACs, are SUPER USERS.
I guess your right as a user on your machine should be adjusted to just
A USER WITH NO RIGHTS by default. Then there should be a super user account somewhere. I guess this way we could put a dent in this new wave of malwares

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>