Security firm details new Trojan written for Apple's Mac OS X

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spinnerlys View Post


    The Mac OS X Malware Myth Continues



    Good article link (one i had not seen before). Thanks.

    Even though from 11-2007, it provides (me anyway) with more understanding of the situation.
  • Reply 62 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post


    Which is odd because before Mac OS X Apple sold less Macs and had a smaller marketshare and yet still managed to have more viruses written for it.



    I had a G3 tower for many years and ran OS 8.0, 8.5, 9.0 and the very first version of OS X. I never caught, nor did I ever hear about a single virus. I would like to know where you get your information from.



    Also, lets just say you ARE correct. Mac OS X has one single proof of concept "virus" and this recent "trojan".



    I still have yet to see anything remotely within even 5% of the malware, spyware, viruses, worms, and trojans available for windows.



    So, please, cite your source.



    Thanks.
  • Reply 63 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ericblr View Post


    I had a G3 tower for many years and ran OS 8.0, 8.5, 9.0 and the very first version of OS X. I never caught, nor did I ever hear about a single virus. I would like to know where you get your information from.



    Also, lets just say you ARE correct. Mac OS X has one single proof of concept "virus" and this recent "trojan".



    I still have yet to see anything remotely within even 5% of the malware, spyware, viruses, worms, and trojans available for windows.



    So, please, cite your source.



    Thanks.



    You don't recall hearing about or never herd about a virus for pre-Mac OS X Macs, that must be that didn't exist. :rollseyes: Can you name all the Windows virus or are all those not real either?



    If you read the read there is plenty of sourcing, including spinnerlys' link explaining why Mac OS X is inherently more secure than Windows despite how strongly you hold to the marketshare myth.
  • Reply 64 of 79
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member
    In all my years with the Mac OS - going back to when it was called System 6 and even before that - I have personally seen exaclty one virus in the wild cDEV or was it Cdev - which copied itself exacly once to any mounted volume and was difficult to eradicate since that was the in the days of every student on campus using a floppy disk to save work done on the Macs in the library and the computer lab - meaning you coudl celan every running system without too much difficulty - but could not easily clean every floppy disk - and it only took one to reinfect the computers.



    The other "Virus" that I ran into was any software from Microsoft. Back in the day there was an app called Disinfectant that would watch for Virus-Like behaviour - things such as an app writing to its own resource fork - and it would allow you to allow an app to perform such behavious - the problem was that most Microsoft apps at the time could not function without at least one of six differnet permissions being allowed - which opened the door for a real Virus to get into the system via an infected MS app.
  • Reply 65 of 79
    zephzeph Posts: 133member
    I just got rid of a very nasty piece of OSX malware.



    It was called WD Drive Manager.







    PS: Charlie Miller says that OSX is not as intrinsically secure as Windows, even though he concedes that over-all Macs are the safer option.



    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...hack,2254.html
  • Reply 66 of 79
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ericblr View Post


    I had a G3 tower for many years and ran OS 8.0, 8.5, 9.0 and the very first version of OS X. I never caught, nor did I ever hear about a single virus.



    Agreed. I've been an Apple user since before there even was a Mac. I have always worked in all Mac environments. Like you, I've never seen or even heard of anyone actually getting a virus on their Mac. Security companies claiming proof-of -concept to try to sell their product, sure, but actual in the wild virus? Never.
  • Reply 67 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post


    You don't recall hearing about or never herd about a virus for pre-Mac OS X Macs, that must be that didn't exist. :rollseyes: Can you name all the Windows virus or are all those not real either?



    If you read the read there is plenty of sourcing, including spinnerlys' link explaining why Mac OS X is inherently more secure than Windows despite how strongly you hold to the marketshare myth.



    I stand corrected, however I have a little history lesson for you.



    Back when Apple had a 5% market-share in the 1980s, there was Commodore, Apple, Atari, Amiga, Texas Instruments (and later, IBM) among others all competing for the desktop space. Any of the software produced for any of these machines was compatible only with the computer it was designed for. It was a very different time, and for Apple to have commanded 5% of a market that was dominated by hobbyists and computer geeks was big. That market-share DID attract the attention of virus coders.



    As the proliferation of IBM computers, DOS, and Windows began in the early 90's NEW viruses were beginning to be written more for IBM.



    I do agree that Mac OS X is a more secure OS, but you cannot dismiss the fact that market-share DOES play a part. To claim that it has nothing to do with the proliferation of viruses makes you look very ignorant.
  • Reply 68 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Malware is still a program, just one that does unpleasant things.



    On a simple level, programs can be script-based or compiled. Script-based programs are interpreted by the operating system at run-time and will work on any architecture as long as it's running the correct OS (i.e. a Unix script won't run on Windows but it will probably run on any OS X machine, regardless of the Mac being PPC or Intel).



    A compiled program is translated from the human-readable source code to "machine code" at compile time, and distributed in this "machine code" format. Machine code differs from one architecture to another - PPC machine code is different from Intel machine code. A machine of the right architecture can read the file and performs the tasks instructed, with the help of the operating system. A compiled program therefore needs the correct architecture and operating system in order to run. Note that it's possible to compile a Mac program to contain both PPC and Intel machine code, and therefore run on any Mac with the correct operating system.



    Thanks. I have asked this question a few times actually. But I think your explanation is by far the easiest to understand.
  • Reply 69 of 79
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ericblr View Post


    ... you cannot dismiss the fact that market-share DOES play a part. To claim that it has nothing to do with the proliferation of viruses makes you look very ignorant.



    Not all of us were born yesterday. The notion marketshare plays a role in malware susceptibility is only about 10 years old. During the early days of Windows XP, that OS faced a withering barrage of viruses. Microsoft faced a growing chorus of criticism and with it, the threat of lawsuits and loss of sales. Bill Gates responded by saying that Windows had more viruses because it was the most popular OS. He offered zero (0) proof of his assertion. It was simply a verbal statement made to the press.



    The statement was demonstrably false. The most popular OS extant was Windows 98, not Windows XP. Yet, Windows 98 was not a target of the virus barrage. The viruses that infected Windows 98 were not as serious as those that infected Windows XP.



    The popular press and the computer buying public accepted Bill Gates's assertion uncritically. Afterall, Windows was the most popular OS. [Not true in the context of the threat.] It only made sense that Windows would have the most viruses, didn't it? This was the most fundamental logical fallacy:
    Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
    It assumes that viruses were a natural consequence of the computing experience and that their development is subject to the rules of chance. To the extent that chance places a role, the various Windows platform loads the dice, marks the cards, and places magnets under the roulette wheel.
  • Reply 70 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    AT 5 or 10% market share, it's just not worth it.



    ...so at what percentage will this canard finally die? 51%? 70%? 99.44%?



    Funny thing is, and unlike (the currently dominant) Windows machines, there are a few bits of info that make Macs one hell of an attractive target:



    * most mac desktops are running almost constantly, and are hooked up to the network

    * given the pricing structure of most Apple computers, the typical buyer is more likely to have more disposable income.

    * You don't have any competing malware and/or botnets to constantly fight off in the OSX-using pile

    * the vast majority of OSX users don't bother with A/V or any sort of anti-malware 'protection'.





    ...and yet you'd think that with all of these attractive features, a given large group of OSX users would certainly have been made someone's bitch by now, no?



    But, in spite of all that, the absolute best that the black hat community can cough up is a bunch of empty (and baseless) bragging. Oh, and a handful of crap trojans that are more of a Darwin Test than anything else.
  • Reply 71 of 79
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member
    deleted
  • Reply 72 of 79
    ericblrericblr Posts: 172member
    There were plenty of threats to windows 98, and any windows 98 software could run fine on XP. It didnt take much effort to create a windows XP program(including virii) that would run on a 98 system. The attention would shift towards the newer system for obvious reasons. Eventually XP became a widely used and much loved OS. You cant treat each version of windows like its an entirely new OS. It was all either based upon the 9x kernel or the NT kernel.



    I am only saying marketshare sometimes reflects growing trends in the market which also provides motivation and incentive for a virus programmer to work towards cracking the system. Its not the only factor, or the biggest factor, but its a factor nonetheless, and im sorry you disagree.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post


    Not all of us were born yesterday. The notion marketshare plays a role in malware susceptibility is only about 10 years old. During the early days of Windows XP, that OS faced a withering barrage of viruses. Microsoft faced a growing chorus of criticism and with it, the threat of lawsuits and loss of sales. Bill Gates responded by saying that Windows had more viruses because it was the most popular OS. He offered zero (0) proof of his assertion. It was simply a verbal statement made to the press.



    The statement was demonstrably false. The most popular OS extant was Windows 98, not Windows XP. Yet, Windows 98 was not a target of the virus barrage. The viruses that infected Windows 98 were not as serious as those that infected Windows XP.



    The popular press and the computer buying public accepted Bill Gates's assertion uncritically. Afterall, Windows was the most popular OS. [Not true in the context of the threat.] It only made sense that Windows would have the most viruses, didn't it? This was the most fundamental logical fallacy:
    Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
    It assumes that viruses were a natural consequence of the computing experience and that their development is subject to the rules of chance. To the extent that chance places a role, the various Windows platform loads the dice, marks the cards, and places magnets under the roulette wheel.



  • Reply 73 of 79
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ericblr View Post


    There were plenty of threats to windows 98, and any windows 98 software could run fine on XP. It didnt take much effort to create a windows XP program(including virii) that would run on a 98 system. The attention would shift towards the newer system for obvious reasons. Eventually XP became a widely used and much loved OS. You cant treat each version of windows like its an entirely new OS. It was all either based upon the 9x kernel or the NT kernel.



    I am only saying marketshare sometimes reflects growing trends in the market which also provides motivation and incentive for a virus programmer to work towards cracking the system. Its not the only factor, or the biggest factor, but its a factor nonetheless, and im sorry you disagree.



    You misrepresented my point. At no time and nowhere did I say that Windows 98 had fewer viruses than Windows XP. I said that Windows XP viruses were worse. And they were. Now you have invented a whole new bit of nonsense about "growing trends." To the extent that viruses make money for their authors, the money is in the here an now. A virus writer does not speculate about what may be big in five or ten years. He steals your credit card number or converts your computer into a zombie because it represents cash now.



    As for the rest of you point, show me some figures from any source that proves that marketshare drives viral infection.
  • Reply 74 of 79
    ericblrericblr Posts: 172member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post


    You misrepresented my point. At no time and nowhere did I say that Windows 98 had fewer viruses than Windows XP. I said that Windows XP viruses were worse. And they were. Now you have invented a whole new bit of nonsense about "growing trends." To the extent that viruses make money for their authors, the money is in the here an now. A virus writer does not speculate about what may be big in five or ten years. He steals your credit card number or converts your computer into a zombie because it represents cash now.



    As for the rest of you point, show me some figures from any source that proves that marketshare drives viral infection.



    Yes, the money is in the here and now. So, with that knowledge, you're going to sit here and tell me that the existence of hundreds of million (if not billions) of computer systems around the world running some variant of Windows provides no incentive whatsoever to a virus programmer? You dont even consider for a SECOND that the reason so many people are creating viruses for windows is because it creates a bigger target?



    NOPE, I guess its solely based on the security (or lack therof) of the system. Popularity of a machine has nothing to do with it!

    You are either a fool, or just plain ignorant!



    OK, you think Mac OS X is so invulnerable to viruses?



    http://www.iantivirus.com/threats/
  • Reply 75 of 79
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ericblr View Post


    Yes, the money is in the here and now. So, with that knowledge, you're going to sit here and tell me that the existence of hundreds of million (if not billions) of computer systems around the world running some variant of Windows provides no incentive whatsoever to a virus programmer? You dont even consider for a SECOND that the reason so many people are creating viruses for windows is because it creates a bigger target?



    NOPE, I guess its solely based on the security (or lack therof) of the system. Popularity of a machine has nothing to do with it!

    You are either a fool, or just plain ignorant!



    OK, you think Mac OS X is so invulnerable to viruses?



    http://www.iantivirus.com/threats/



    Illogical. No one ever said that the millions of Windows PCs don't represent the largest amounts of cash. The thing that you don't understand is that Macs also represent massive amounts of cash, perhaps a larger amount of cash per station than the Windows PCs. Macs would make wonderful targets if they were vulnerable.



    You also don't seem to understand that thieves seek targets of opportunity. Do you snatch a purse or rob the liquor store? Do you rob a liquor store or Podunk State Bank? Do you rob Podunk State Bank or Chase Bank? Do you rob Chase Bank or Fort Knox? Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you go for the biggest haul or do you go for the target that you can actually take down and from which you can escape?



    Every single item out of the 116 items on your threat list requires installation by a legitimate user. The term of art is "cooperative target." No uncooperative MacOS X computer has ever been breached. It would be stupid for a thief to expend resources to try to be the first to breach an uncooperative MacOS X computer while Windows PCs can be breached. You are not going to make any money by trying to rob Fort Knox.



    Illogical though you may be, you still have no excuse for using personal invective. If you continue, then you run the distinct danger of being banned from the forum.
  • Reply 76 of 79
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chronster View Post


    clearly OSX is just a wide open free for all where hackers can gain social security and credit card numbers, and nude photos of your wife!



    Dang it! *I* haven't even seen the nude photos of my wife, give em back!
  • Reply 77 of 79
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


    They're starting to make your dream come true:

    http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...orm_targe.html



    They're going to have to try harder than going after Java (esp. considering that IIRC Lion won't even have it in there).
  • Reply 78 of 79
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Random Walk View Post


    They're going to have to try harder than going after Java (esp. considering that IIRC Lion won't even have it in there).



    Java will be available for Lion. However, Apple will not provide it. IIRC, Apple no longer provides Java for Snow Leopard. Development of Java is now the exclusive domain of Oracle.
  • Reply 79 of 79
    penchantedpenchanted Posts: 1,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post


    Java will be available for Lion. However, Apple will not provide it. IIRC, Apple no longer provides Java for Snow Leopard. Development of Java is now the exclusive domain of Oracle.



    From what I've read, Apple will continue to provide Java SE6 for both Snow Leopard and Lion (perhaps as a separate download or install). Java SE7 will be available directly from Oracle.



    Quote:

    Also missing from Lion is a preinstalled Java runtime capable of executing "100% pure" Java apps. There are few examples of Java desktop apps in the wild, so most users won't notice. Not bundling the runtime will erase a large number of security vulnerabilities from the reported list of issues related to Mac OS X going forward however, as Java exists as a parallel platform to Apple's native Cocoa.



    When users attempt to run a Java app, Lion offers to look online for a version it can install, and will download and install a slightly newer version than is currently available for Snow Leopard today (1.6.0_24-b07-329, rather than 1.6.0_22-b04-307).



    Apple announced earlier that it would be working with Oracle to divest itself of maintenance of the Java platform on Macs, setting up a new OpenJDK Project for Java on Mac OS X going forward, starting with the release of Java SE 7.



    Apple noted that the Java runtime may be removed from future versions of its operating system, and it appears that will be the case with Lion, albeit with a rather painless install option for users who need it.



    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...e_rosetta.html
Sign In or Register to comment.