ie8 fix
madison

New Apple antivirus signatures bypassed within hours by malware authors [Update]

By | May 31, 2011, 1:59pm PDT

Summary: After a month-long Mac Defender/Mac Guard malware attack, Apple has finally released the security update it promised last week. The update takes one more step on the road to turning an obscure security feature into something very close to full-fledged antivirus software, complete with daily checks for new definitions.

Update June 3, 5:00AM PDT: The cat-and-mouse game continues. Apple has now released the fourth update to its XProtect definitions list covering all five known versions of the Mac Defender software. (The latest release uses the name Mac Shield and is detected as OSX.MacDefender.E.) Here’s a snippet from the latest definition file:

Update June 1, 6:00AM PDT: The bad guys have wasted no time. Hours after Apple released this update and the initial set of definitions, a new variation of Mac Defender is in the wild. This one has a new name, Mdinstall.pkg, and it has been specifically formulated to skate past Apple’s malware-blocking code.

The file has a date and time stamp from last night at 9:24PM Pacific time. That’s less than 8 hours after Apple’s security update was released.

On a test system using Safari with default settings, it behaved exactly as before, beginning the installation process with no password required.

As PC virus experts know, this cat-and-mouse game can go on indefinitely. Your move, Apple.

Update June 2, 4:45AM PDT: Apple has updated its XProtect signatures to address the most recent version of Mac Defender. The signatures, which began being pushed out via the new automatic update mechanism sometime on June 1, now include three variants of the malware. Here’s the detection result for the third variant, OSX.MacDefender.C:

It’s worth noting that the automatic updater runs at startup or every 24 hours. On my test system, I had to force a manual update before the new signatures were available. Had I not done so, I would have had to wait until the 24-hour clock expired.

I’ve also captured a video that shows the File Quarantine feature successfully blocking an attempt to automatically install the Mac Guard malware. See below.

After a month-long Mac Defender/Mac Guard malware attack, Apple has finally released the security update it promised last week. The update takes Apple one step closer to turning an obscure security feature into something very close to full-fledged antivirus software.

Security Update 2011-003 includes changes to the File Quarantine feature, which beginning with Snow Leopard also includes antimalware checks for files downloaded through web browsers, e-mail, and other common paths. This update includes definitions for Mac Defender and its known variants, as well as an automated removal tool. It works only with the most recent version of Snow Leopard, 10.6.7. Earlier versions of OS X are apparently not included.

The two videos below show how Mac Guard (the current release of this malware) behaves before and after this security update.

Here’s a start-to-finish, unedited “before” video that shows how the Mac Guard fake AV program goes from a seemingly innocent Google search result to a full install in just three clicks, with no password required. This demo uses the latest version of OS X 10.6 and the default browser, Safari, with its default settings.

Update: As I noted above, the May 31 release of Mdinstall.pkg is not detected by the 2011-003 update and signature files.

And here’s the “after” video. Notice how the File Quarantine feature identifies the downloaded file as malware and prompts the user to move it to the trash.

Downloading the malware files with Firefox or Chrome results in a slightly different experience, but ultimately the same dialog box clicks in and blocks the attempt to install the package.

Significantly, it also includes a new update mechanism. According to the support note, “The system will check daily for updates to the File Quarantine malware definition list.” An opt-out capability is provided via the new “Automatically update safe downloads list” checkbox in Security Preferences.

Mac OS X Snow Leopard and malware detection, another support note that was also updated today, describes the new user interface option now available in OS X 10.6.7:

Apple maintains a list of known malicious software that is used during the safe download check to determine if a file contains malicious software. The list is stored locally, and with Security Update 2011-003 is updated daily by a background process.

If you do not wish to receive these updates, you can disable daily update by unchecking “Automatically update safe downloads list” in the Security pane, in System Preferences. This option appears in Security preferences after Security Update 2011-003 is installed.

Apple partisans have bragged for years that Macs don’t need antivirus software, but Apple has quietly said otherwise. The no-frills antivirus program included as part of the File Quarantine feature was originally documented in Apple support article HT3662:

Snow Leopard checks for malware

Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard builds upon the existing unsafe file type check by also checking for known instances of “malware”, or malicious software. When you open a quarantined file, the file quarantine feature will check to see if it may include known malware.

File Quarantine includes only a handful of signatures and has been updated fairly infrequently. A notice in the April 10.6.7 security bulletin notes that the OSX.OpinionSpy definition was added to Snow Leopard’s malware check. That action comes more than 10 months after this spyware application was first identified.

Multiple support documents at Apple.com recommend the use of antivirus tools for desktop and server versions of OS X:

  • From Mac OS X Server v10.6 - Advanced Server Administration (PDF), page 76: “Install antivirus tools, use them regularly, and update virus definition files and software regularly. Although viruses are less prevalent on the Mac platform than on Windows, viruses still pose a risk.”
  • From Mac OS X 10.6 Help: “Some harmful applications exist that can cause problems for your computer. Frequently, a harmful application will try to appear as an innocent document, such as a movie or graphic file. … Run an antivirus program if you find any suspicious files or applications, or if you notice any suspicious behavior on your computer.”
  • An August 2008 support document, “Safety tips for handling email attachments and content downloaded from the Internet”: “Only download and install applications from trusted sources, such as well-known application publishers, authorized resellers, or other well-known distributors. It is also advisable to use antivirus software to scan any files before installation. A selection of third-party products may be found at the Macintosh Products Guide.”
  • At the bottom of the Mac OS X Security page, after much chest-thumping about built-in security features: “The Mac is designed with built-in technologies that provide protection against malicious software and security threats right out of the box. However, since no system can be 100 percent immune from every threat, antivirus software may offer additional protection.”

It will be interesting to see how widely Apple publicizes this notice. It will be even more interesting to see how the authors of Mac Defender and its variants respond.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

457
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Apple updates antivirus software, adds daily definition check
jeremychappell 5th Jun
@nickdangerthirdi@... You get to a webpage that pretends to be a Finder window (it's content looks superficially like that of a Finder window - the Mac equivalent of "Windows Explorer"), but this is just graphics (Mac is rendering the page) part of this looks like a dialog (again this is just a graphic). The page has a download on it, which downloads (as you'd expect). In the default setup the Mac sees this is an installer within and starts it. The user is looking at a webpage that they are supposed to mistake for a system message, and an installer that supposedly will fix this (this is actually the trojan). If they are fooled then they push the button(s) (there are several) to install the program. But the user has to be fooled, otherwise they'll smell a rat, quit the installer and delete the download - if this happens there is no infection.

See why I say this in an attack on the user? It's much like similar attacks on Windows (if you have the browser's user agent reporting the system as Windows then the webpage looks like a Windows Explorer page and a ".exe" is downloaded - exactly the same attack, but this time delivering a Trojan for Windows).
(even though laboratory and proof of concept examples did exist.)

And, whole MacDefender thing is grossly overblown by media since people have to have three level of cluelessness to actually harmed by this (comparing to PC counterparts, where such social engineering technologies much more effective): http://www.zdnet.com/tb/1-97915-1892322

This trojan thing is not really different from user receiving letters on GMail that would state that some one has huge money locked on the offshore account, but he/she needs some money to unlock it, banking card info to transfer it, etc. Such mails have nothing to do with Google, the same as this trojan does not exploit any "lacks" in Apple's software since in all cases users have to install it *voluntary*.




Also, the software that Apple included in the update is nothing like what people call antivirus now. It does not run 24/7 checking the memory, IO bandwith, system files and thus making your computer crawling.

It looks only at quarantine folder for downloads, checking files for few malware signatures. And most people will never know that this feature even exists (contrary to actual antivirus which always let you know about itself).
0 Votes
+ -
@denisrs NT
0 Votes
+ -
@richdave N/T
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
james347 31st May
Message has been deleted.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted
james347 31st May
Message has been deleted
0 Votes
+ -
Sounds clear headed to me.
DougPetrosky 31st May
@richdave
His head is buried firmly in reality. 11+ years of OS X with no real threats. 10+ years of security experts saying just wait! You will see. Here is looking forward to another decade of proving them wrong.

Note: We know threats are out there! Apple has warned us to protect ourselves. Nobody thinks the mac is immune to any and all future attacks. But at current threat levels, worrying about infection is just a waste of time.
@dougpetrosky
Apple has plenty of vulnerabilites, both now and over the years: go to us-cert.gov, search on Apple and you'll find them. All software is vulnerable. To say otherwise is foolish marketing-speak and only puts a target on your chest. Remember the Oracle "unbreakable" campaign?
@richdave You need more than 'Wow' to make a reasoned argument. if you have one, lets hear it. Otherwise you are just a cheerleader, and contribute nothing.
@DougPetrosky

You know, it's never worth it worrying about infection at all, on any operating system. It's best to just develop safe habits and seek to understand how the fundamental technologies we use actually work. I do however think that it's also true Apple is finally leaving the security in obscurity subset and moving into the scope of effective targetability. It's a monetary game in the end, and Apple legitimately does next to nothing to mitigate security breaches, simply because they haven't had to. The fact that Apple managed to remain obscure for 27 years in my opinion is simply an indication of mismanagement of a type MS is suffering at present. It's certainly not a selling point to me, and it doesn't equal correct attention to detail placed in permission checking at a low level. They consumed a unix kernel attempting to correct that, but are still dogged by a lack of understanding of what makes the infrastructure secure in the first place.
@richdave LMAO
@richdave You can say head in the sand all you want, but what he stated are facts.

There STILL AREN'T AS MANY THREATS FOR MAC.

And this Mac Defender isn't a virus, nor is it destructive.

There really isn't anything ANY software maker can do to prevent a user making STUPID DECISIONS, like installing software they didn't ask for, and giving it a credit card number.
@Sounds clear headed to me.

"Nobody thinks the mac is immune to any and all future attacks"

actually you could have said this clearer... because OSX has actually proven that you can have a system that is "secure" it still has never been attacked successfully in the wild... a user for instance can not be surprised by something showing up without the user doing it in the first place... even Charlie white's exploits need a user to actually say "yes" to questions and going to sites and such...

a better way to say it is: " no User is immune to future attack vectors, the system is already secure enough, educating a user to understand when someone calls on the phone or pops up a website that asks for the user's credit card number in the wrong place, that this is nothing more than a scam rather than a security threat"

if someone asks for your credit card on the phone or a website, you are in the wrong place if you were just surfing with no intent to buy.
0 Votes
+ -
@ DougPetrosky
For years and years every time Windows, or even Office had even the slightest flaw, the slightest of far removed risks, the Apple enthusiasts would be out in droves jumping up and down and pointing at what a risky piece of software Windows is.

Feigning laughter and disgust over Office for example because the Chinese version of Excel had a minor vulnerability. For years Windows users have had to endure the scorn of Apple enthusiasts simply because another socially engineered piece of malware was making its way into the Windows environment. Nothing more then a continued and ongoing over reaction; usually in the extreme,about every and any issue Windows was reported to have.

The absolute honest to god fact always was that the vast majority, as in practically ALL Windows users have been protected for almost ever, in IT terms, from the vast majority of threats by their installed AV systems. For the vast vast majority of Windows users there are many of the threats faced by Windows that they would have had to be even more stupid then Apple users to allow something on their system, this is because their AV system would be blocking directly and alerting the user to exactly the situation, necessitating the user deciding to literally choose to disable their AV system and retry what every they were doing.

During this incredibly insulting period of time where Apple users have sought to degrade Windows users because Windows is popular, and thus has threats, even though free AV systems were more then adequately blocking those threats; Apple users always maintained the same story pertaining to their own OS.

Apple users for years have been saying the same line; "We know Apple and OSX isn't perfect, but there are no imperfections". Basically translated I guess as, Apple may be imperfect, its just that we don't know because so far nothing imperfect has reared its head (that we agree to believe).

But in their view Windows was always trash simply because the threats for Windows existed. It was never based on anything like, is this a threat Windows users cannot protect themselves from, is this a threat shutting down large numbers of computers around the world? Never.

Windows users have long time been protected and protected well. And now that OSX is getting threats, the very same kinds of threats that Windows has been criticized by them, absolutely astonishingly, the Apple enthusiasts are still saying the same thing!! Apple isn't perfect but there currently are no imperfections! Absolutely ignorant to say the least.

Why why why cannot these Apple users just admit the truth thats always existed, and that as is follows:

1. Both Windows and OSX are perfectly good operating systems that draw users to them based on a variety of reasons, when users choose a respective system for sensible related reasons to the particular operating system, they have chosen the OS that is best for them.

2. Windows has had 90% of the market share for just about for ever and as such it has been the largest target by far and as such, almost all security threats have related to Windows, but a sane Windows user will be using AV and keeping it updated and as such their true threat exposure is actually incredibly minimal.

3. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, in other words, if socially engineered malware attacks expose flaws in Windows OS and that makes Windows crap then any OS, including OSX, is likewise crap if socially engineered attacks exist for it as well. Or the alternative, neither OS is crap and its just the unfortunate nature of operating a computer on the net.

I for one do NOT find that their is anything inherently bad about OSX, its just far to many of the Apple enthusiasts who in their efforts to boost their self esteem for their choice of OS go to ridiculous efforts to explain away clear flaws in OSX while at the same time are critical about Windows for the same kinds of reasons they give OSX a pass on.
@denisrs

I'm just a student, but there is a lot about your opinion/post/reply that not only discredits itself but all in all passes it's message poorly. I'm not one to nitpick typing habits or grammatical errors, but your post is barely readable. You make no valid points, you misclassify things in an attempt to make a point, and you repeatedly use fallacies to come to places where people seemingly find no other option but to agree with you.
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
james347 31st May
Message has been deleted.
  • Flagged
@TheParoxysm
Well student, you need to get some remedial reading skills. I understood the article perfectly! That being said, we can all cheer, now that Apple did the right thing. Hooraay!!!
@TheParoxysm If you're going to criticise other people's grammar, you should check your own first. "it's message" should be "its message".
0 Votes
+ -
@TheParoxysm Well said...?!?
@windozefreak,

It's not the article he's commenting on. It was Denisrs's post that he was replying to. I have to agree with TheParoxysm on this one. I'm not one for grammatical errors as I make tons myself. But the points were not great.
@TheParoxysm What you should be asking is why aren't the Apple reporters (O'Grady and Morgenstern) on this site taking over this story? Why do they not try to take the lead on it, rather than keep letting the MS guy or Kingsley-Hughes have to break all the important security news related to this issue? Pull up the Companies listing on this site, and click on 'Apple', and see who's covering it. You get nothing but cricket chirps from the supposed Apple correspondents. Sad - probably too frightened of losing their tenuous grips on the almighty Jobsian propaganda trickle they have if they start shedding some light on a legit story line. Keep whistling past the graveyard, boys...
@TheParoxysm Welcom 2 thee internet were speling and gramma dont count
@TheParoxysm Why was this flagged? Sheesh.
@ejhonda The apple correspondents here have an agenda. That's why.
@TheParoxysm@...

Translation: You don't have enough technical knowledge of the subject matter to contribute anything of value, so you have resorted to picking apart the author's grammar.
0 Votes
+ -
(updated again)

@denisrs I'm afraid Ed is exploiting the general cluelessness of people simply to pump page views - he is malware.

This is interesting, not because of anything technical (as I've noted elsewhere - this doesn't compromise anything in Mac OS X, this is an attack on the user) but because of how widespread the SEO poisoning of Google Image Search actually is (and here is the real story - one that Ed can't actually wrap him mind around). This should be an issue for users of both Windows AND the Mac - both would be attacked in exactly the same way. Linux users have a better time - that "lack of standardisation" helps here (what does a window look like on Linux? Exactly, you don't know, neither does the malware writer).

But Ed has wanted to spin this as purely a Mac story - he's missed the actual story about SEO poisoning, and how susceptible our favourite search engine is. There are a lot of people (I mean A LOT) who type everything into Google to get there, so they'll visit ZDNet by entering "zdnet.com" into Google. But isn't that just a little dangerous, given what's happened? Now forget ZDNet for a moment, now think about visiting your bank... If a webpage can look a little like a Finder window, it can look like your bank, pretty scary right?

Now about that no viruses thing. I've seen plenty especially on "classic" Mac OS (that is "before X") usually riding on disks. We quickly learned that a SyQuest disk coming back from an outside print house should be reformatted before putting it anywhere near our Power Mac (I used a Sun SparcStation - Mac couldn't read the resulting disk, so reinitialised it - but the virus was gone).

OK, Ed poses some questions, so I guess we can address them. Widespread alerting users - nope, it'll be an update like any other. You can dig into what it does, but the vast majority of Mac users won't. How will MacDefender respond? Well if they achieved significant traction (quite a big if) they'll probably wait for the definitions then roll out a new version right away. So ultimately, assuming it has made them any money then this won't actually work. I actually think Apple will probably have to move to a "safe files white list" rather than a "black list" (what they are trying). Or provide a different mechanism to get downloads running (a Windows style "Run, Save, Cancel" type alert perhaps). If it hasn't significantly impacted Mac users, then they'll probably give up. I think the odds are in favour of the former.

(Updated again) Yep, I thought they'd probably do this (last paragraph) and sure enough they did, Apple's update is now completely pointless. It seems Apple are going to need to go back to the drawing board on this, because this approach isn't going to fly. Of course, now there is a mechanism that attempts to stop this, one can now chalk this up as a technical failure (yes, that is a rather ironic result). I don't think this is high risk for most Mac users, it still needs the user to push the buttons, but clearly it has been worthwhile creating a new version. So the earlier advice stands, switch off 'Open "Safe" files after downloading', additionally consider making "Applications" read only - but most of all, if you see an installer you didn't consciously start; quit it. Emptying out the "Downloads" folder can't hurt either.

(updated)

An interesting thing, if you change Safari's User Agent, (I used Safari for Windows) and follow an attack link you get the same kind of attack - just the Windows version. It looks predicated on the idea you're running Windows XP (it's the Luna Theme they are copying). So these attacks are coming from the exactly same people. The question as to will this continue is how "well" are they doing against Mac users compared to XP (and there are a heck of a lot more XP users)? If their exploits with Mac OS X aren't yielding significant gains compared to Windows then I don't see them continuing (simple economics). But it's probably only "the bad guys" who know how well this is working.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple updates antivirus software, adds daily definition check
StupidTechZealots-23432415690276115908309621553360 31st May
@jeremychappell Thanks for pointing this out. I found http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/iframes-please-make-way-seo-poisoning as good guide for explaining it all. I always wondered about those fake links in the search results and why they are there.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
I covered this last month
Ed Bott 31st May
@jeremychappell

You obviously missed the two stories I did last month showing how this affects Windows users. I even included videos showing how Google image search leads to Windows malware.

Thanks for playing
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
@Ed Bott - So did you reference them? No, you didn't. You spun this like it was something quite different. You clearly have an inflated ego if you think I'm going to read (or remember) everything you write.

But thanks for playing.

@rtk Well, I'm not sure either, so I do allow for that possibility with "or remember". But I bet if I did comment it wasn't triumphant "Windoze sux" style nonsense, as someone who actually uses Mac OS X, Linux AND Windows - I don't take pleasure in problems with any of them, and I hope I don't show (too much) bias either.

@kc63092@... Ed has been on a bit of a tear with these, and they aren't exactly "balanced". Given that fundamentally the "big story" here is a massive SEO poisoning of Google Image Search with malware aimed (unusually, though not uniquely) at Mac users, you'd have thought the SEO poisoning part would figure more highly. I also don't accept Ed position that this is the harbinger for a more general problem - there simply is no evidence. This isn't exploiting any weakness in Mac OS X, it IS exploiting a weakness in Google's Algorithm (more properly their data collection mechanism, which is what is being gamed here). So what we're left with is "bad journalism". Even more egregious given that Ed has actually written (by his own admission) stories about SEO poisoning in the past! Now I do run machines with Mac OS X, Linux and Windows. All of them have patches applied when they become available. On Mac OS X there are changes to standard configuration (switching off 'Open "safe" files after downloading', changing permissions on "Applications" folder, changing the Firewall... you get the idea). Is Mac OS X my favourite OS, not by volume (that would be Linux, then Windows), but I'll plead guilty as charged otherwise. But I've been using it since it was called NeXTSTEP 3.0 - and I do know my way around it pretty well (on Windows, I still put the Control Panel into "Classic" and use the "Computer Management Tool" for most tasks - though I'm sure there are more user centric tools for most of those functions - what can I say, I'm a server guy). But I don't think I'm excessively biased.
@jeremychappell

Without checking, I'd bet you not only "read" Ed's stories, you probably even commented.

Care to take up the bet?
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted
james347 31st May
Message has been deleted
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted
james347 31st May
Message has been deleted
@jeremychappell
you hit bullseye! if you forget for a moment the notion that this post is against your favorite os, then you will realize that this is a wake up call. my one cent...
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
james347 31st May
Message has been deleted.
0 Votes
+ -
@jeremychappell nt
@jeremychappell

We all know that Ed is a poster boy for Windows fanboys everywhere.

Despite his characterizations of Mac users "bragging" and Apple "chest thumping", all that we have been doing is stating the FACTS and the Windows fanboys (this site is full of them, the entire ZD empire is built with the WFB in mind) have been doing nothing but denying the Mac's many advantages and hating on anyone who would give it a second glance.

How is that working out for you clowns? Windows 8 is going to be really great, right? LOL
@Ed the WFB:

We can barely stand to read your drivel and all it's bias when you are writing about the Mac. Now you want us to read your POINTLESS DRIVEL about an OS we don't use?
@jeremychappell And he hit a nerve on the blind users. But it is entertaining.
@kc63092@... Exactly.
@jeremychappell Ed=malware. funny. Ed seems to have become the ad hoc Mac reporter at zdnet. Better than none... I suppose.
Thanks for rising above all of the pedantic juvenile BS and providing this meaningful post.
@jeremychappell
"Now you want us to read your POINTLESS DRIVEL about an OS we don't use?"

Might be better for everyone if you didn't - but here you are... bleating uninformed opinions about an OS that you don't use. Why is that?
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
Ternarybit Updated - 1st Jun
  • Flagged
@jeremychappell@
"they'll probably wait for the definitions then roll out a new version right away."
I do have to give you one here. They definitely responded right away, witin 8 hours according to Eds' report.

I believe, that Ed also said something along this line of reasoning in one of his other blogs covering this new malware for Apple.
@jeremychappell

"Apple's update is now completely pointless"

did you actually say this? because this makes you look silly? Apple's update took less time than the variant did according to Ed, (8hrs), meaning... the variant is now pointless... not even Gullible mac users are going to download it now... what exactly were you trying to say there???...

which brings up the point that Ed Bott didn't actually understand what Apple had created, of course Apple would update the definitions, duhh, everyone and their mother saw this coming, (except Ed Bott i guess) meaning Ed Bott's article was nothing more than scareware itself, because the variant would be squashed before people could even read Ed's article let alone get the variant, which would make Ed look silly when people read it later, and sure enough Ed had to put in an "update" which in reality is a "retraction" to his blog.

"I've seen plenty"?????

name a single "virus" for OSX.... your stories of yesteryear are quaint and all, but this is about reality.. you can not name a single Virus for OSX, because not a single one exists...

attacks against " OS X aren't yielding significant gains"

apple has created a 24 hour cycle definition update.. meaning few to Zero users of Macs will ever be affected from this particular Russian Gang's malware, now even Gullible mac users are protected from this Gang's activity, because their simplistic vector of attack (on clueless users) is being monitored.

where XP users are left hanging, well the gullible ones anyway....

why is Apple able to do this and not MSFT? because MSFT has created fragmentation in their platforms, total chaos, from Vista to Windows, to XP, with 100's of attacks against them,

Apple had two lines of definitions to write, and they were done for the day....

what ever you want to call it, if you are a mac user, gullible or not, you are safer than a PC user... simply looking at reality shows this off to it's fullest.

"If it hasn't significantly impacted Mac users, then they'll probably give up"

this is also a completely silly statement, it takes the black hatters several hours to create new variants AND get them into poisoned links, AND propagate those links, it takes Apple a couple minutes to update a definition.... which one is going to win again?
@honkj OK, now I really feel I'm getting this right - I've been told I'm wrong by both sides, a sure sign you're "on the money".

Yes, I did say this, and I actually stand by it. The scareware gang (let's call this what it is) have very little to do, wait for the update, roll out a new version and make the pages vending this stuff vend the new version. (These are links - you don't need anything to propagate - Google never saw the scareware, they vend a different page to Google by responding to the user agent). So I don't see Apple's updating working. This is the exact same argument I have with Ed when he says Mac users need AntiVirus - it won't work. I clearly don't understand Ed's position, because he think's Apple's updating of signatures won't work, but anyone else doing the same thing will - you'd almost think he was biased wouldn't you?

But as an attack, it's pretty crude. It does rely on the user being fooled, and allowing the installer to run (you actually need to push buttons on the installer to progress it through). Unlike Ed, I don't see this being a big problem for Mac users, and I really don't see it as a harbinger of worse to come. I do think Ed has really over played this for page views, and not really helped his readership understand what this is (and what it isn't) and what they need to do (and not do).

And sorry about the history, when you get to my age you do tend to go on about how things used to be. You're right of course, there haven't been any true viruses that afflict Mac OS X.
@jeremychappell wha? an attack on users? doesnt that attack exploit a security hole in OSX? basically your comment is like saying windows is fine, its the users fault.. but then thats a typical apple response, kind of like "You're holding the phone wrong"
@nickdangerthirdi@... You get to a webpage that pretends to be a Finder window (it's content looks superficially like that of a Finder window - the Mac equivalent of "Windows Explorer"), but this is just graphics (Mac is rendering the page) part of this looks like a dialog (again this is just a graphic). The page has a download on it, which downloads (as you'd expect). In the default setup the Mac sees this is an installer within and starts it. The user is looking at a webpage that they are supposed to mistake for a system message, and an installer that supposedly will fix this (this is actually the trojan). If they are fooled then they push the button(s) (there are several) to install the program. But the user has to be fooled, otherwise they'll smell a rat, quit the installer and delete the download - if this happens there is no infection.

See why I say this in an attack on the user? It's much like similar attacks on Windows (if you have the browser's user agent reporting the system as Windows then the webpage looks like a Windows Explorer page and a ".exe" is downloaded - exactly the same attack, but this time delivering a Trojan for Windows).
0 Votes
+ -
@denisrs

the subject pretty much answers your post... You wanna know why there isnt a Viral epidemic? because for the past 27-years, Mac has pretty been the bottom feeder in the OS world...now that they're FINALLY getting some spot-light, you will see how your magical OS will be a freshly painted target for the cracking community... All it takes is one comment from Jobs, and its GG...Look at PBS, Lockheed, Honda Canada, Sony, no company is impervious to the cracking/viral community...

I dont care about this, i dont own a Mac, and couldnt care less to own one... I enjoy building my own custom PC's and tinkering with Win7... I have never had a problem with it thus far..
@iPwnz
"No-one gives a **** about Macs"
"I dont care about this, i dont own a Mac, and couldnt care less to own one"
So why did you waste your time and ours reading this article and making this childish post?

By the way, I am passing to you an apostrophe in the hope that you learn how to use one!
@ptorning

lol

maybe he should try IOS - it adds them for him... but he probably doesn't have time to try a new device that might help happy

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix