Apple Investigating 'MACDefender' Malware, Support Staff Barred From Assisting Customers

[BeyondtheTech]

In case it ever comes to that point, Sophos Anti-Virus for Mac is FREE.

http://www.sophos.com/en-us/products/free-tools/sophos-antivirus-for-mac-home-edition.aspx

I'm not affiliated with the company or the product, but having it at my workplace on all my PCs have done a better job than McAfee and Symantec combined, and it has the smallest footprint and least amount of CPU impact.

Besides, the Sophos virus definition library covers and cleans PC viruses as well, so in case you're running Parallels or VMware or have a BootCamp partition to run Windows, this can still be handy.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I don't know what you were trying to argue on but it seems you have misunderstood or misinterpreted my post.

What I meant was that 'Macs' were only meant for the people had some serious work to do; be it desktop publishing [still work] or low level scripting or any other work. This can be attributed to macs being overly expensive during that era and people just couldn't afford them.

Macs were used in school. I don't know how serious that was. It's the only time I ever ran into one when I was growing up. I never used them outside of a school environment until 2006 when i bought my first Mac (used PowerMac still serving my whole house audio/video system today).

Maybe the rich were the ones buying it [obviously], but they had their utility.

All computers have a utility. I had a C64 for games, but I did do school reports on it, etc. as well.

The point that I'm trying to emphasize is that in the recent times, macs have gone cheaper and more people are able to afford/experiment them.

ALL computers have gone cheaper. Macs are still MUCH higher than most PC computers, though, so the fact they are more affordable has more to do with relative overall electronics, IMO. $1000 isn't what it used to be.

Instead of the pro-work, people use macs for casual tasks which wasn't the case before.

What did they use for casual tasks? An Apple II? Maybe the fact that early Macs were Black & White detracted from their appeal for many things?

But seriously, why would you even throw the following arguments in the conversation:

I believe my point had to do with older Macs being different hardware from PCs, while today they are exactly the same. My Hackintosh shows that (and apparently does it better/more reliable than Apple's own hardware based on my experience). In other words, today's Macs are just another PC with a different OS on it today (some with fancy cases). They USED to be a different hardware platform so 'superiority' could be claimed based on different performance relative to a PC (and in the Dos days, the interface was so different as well that they attracted a completely different market; the price premium seemed to me to be about ease of use). Today, the relative performance is software-based and sadly the Mac is a bit slow in the graphics department due to a lack of driver updates by Apple and limited hardware selection.

Thus, if anything, Mac USED to be MORE attractive to non-tech users due to Dos on the PC being so bloody obtuse. That was in the days that Macs had maybe 16-20% of the market share (late '80s, early '90s). When Windows 3.1 came out, it was a 'why pay more' situation. Windows was inferior, but the average user just wanted utility/ease-of-use and a cheap price (businesses too on the latter). One could no longer justify the price premium. Today, I'm looking at Hackintosh solutions precisely because there is no longer any hardware differences. Apple's price premiums are largely unjustified and artificially keep the Mac market small (but doesn't hurt their bottom line since they make more from less). But perhaps that's good in an obscurity sense, but I don't like paying more for the same hardware. And it cannot be all put on the software cost because a Mac Mini isn't that much money and it's still OSX.

 

[MrWinters]

Macs were used in school. I don't know how serious that was. It's the only time I ever ran into one when I was growing up. I never used them outside of a school environment until 2006 when i bought my first Mac (used PowerMac still serving my whole house audio/video system today).



All computers have a utility. I had a C64 for games, but I did do school reports on it, etc. as well.



ALL computers have gone cheaper. Macs are still MUCH higher than most PC computers, though, so the fact they are more affordable has more to do with relative overall electronics, IMO. $1000 isn't what it used to be.



What did they use for casual tasks? An Apple II? Maybe the fact that early Macs were Black & White detracted from their appeal for many things?



I believe my point had to do with older Macs being different hardware from PCs, while today they are exactly the same. My Hackintosh shows that (and apparently does it better/more reliable than Apple's own hardware based on my experience). In other words, today's Macs are just another PC with a different OS on it today (some with fancy cases). They USED to be a different hardware platform so 'superiority' could be claimed based on different performance relative to a PC (and in the Dos days, the interface was so different as well that they attracted a completely different market; the price premium seemed to me to be about ease of use). Today, the relative performance is software-based and sadly the Mac is a bit slow in the graphics department due to a lack of driver updates by Apple and limited hardware selection.

Thus, if anything, Mac USED to be MORE attractive to non-tech users due to Dos on the PC being so bloody obtuse. That was in the days that Macs had maybe 16-20% of the market share (late '80s, early '90s). When Windows 3.1 came out, it was a 'why pay more' situation. Windows was inferior, but the average user just wanted utility/ease-of-use and a cheap price (businesses too on the latter). One could no longer justify the price premium. Today, I'm looking at Hackintosh solutions precisely because there is no longer any hardware differences. Apple's price premiums are largely unjustified and artificially keep the Mac market small (but doesn't hurt their bottom line since they make more from less). But perhaps that's good in an obscurity sense, but I don't like paying more for the same hardware. And it cannot be all put on the software cost because a Mac Mini isn't that much money and it's still OSX.

Absolutely outstanding post, and quite factual. It's how I remember it.

 

[dethmaShine]

Macs were used in school. I don't know how serious that was. It's the only time I ever ran into one when I was growing up. I never used them outside of a school environment until 2006 when i bought my first Mac (used PowerMac still serving my whole house audio/video system today).



All computers have a utility. I had a C64 for games, but I did do school reports on it, etc. as well.



ALL computers have gone cheaper. Macs are still MUCH higher than most PC computers, though, so the fact they are more affordable has more to do with relative overall electronics, IMO. $1000 isn't what it used to be.



What did they use for casual tasks? An Apple II? Maybe the fact that early Macs were Black & White detracted from their appeal for many things?



I believe my point had to do with older Macs being different hardware from PCs, while today they are exactly the same. My Hackintosh shows that (and apparently does it better/more reliable than Apple's own hardware based on my experience). In other words, today's Macs are just another PC with a different OS on it today (some with fancy cases). They USED to be a different hardware platform so 'superiority' could be claimed based on different performance relative to a PC (and in the Dos days, the interface was so different as well that they attracted a completely different market; the price premium seemed to me to be about ease of use). Today, the relative performance is software-based and sadly the Mac is a bit slow in the graphics department due to a lack of driver updates by Apple and limited hardware selection.

Thus, if anything, Mac USED to be MORE attractive to non-tech users due to Dos on the PC being so bloody obtuse. That was in the days that Macs had maybe 16-20% of the market share (late '80s, early '90s). When Windows 3.1 came out, it was a 'why pay more' situation. Windows was inferior, but the average user just wanted utility/ease-of-use and a cheap price (businesses too on the latter). One could no longer justify the price premium. Today, I'm looking at Hackintosh solutions precisely because there is no longer any hardware differences. Apple's price premiums are largely unjustified and artificially keep the Mac market small (but doesn't hurt their bottom line since they make more from less). But perhaps that's good in an obscurity sense, but I don't like paying more for the same hardware. And it cannot be all put on the software cost because a Mac Mini isn't that much money and it's still OSX.

Wow.

You throw in a thousand words but can't explain how this post is related to anything that I posted?

Macs were not used for casual work before. Before as in pre-2k.

When I say, Macs were not used... - I imply, majority of macs were not used for casual work.

Now they are. Now as in post-2k.

Where am I going wrong, if you would like to explain?

 

[GGJstudios]

It's not the users fault for the most part as I have understood that you can easily get this malware without violating any safe practices.

The safe practice that the user violates to be infected by the MacDefender malware is to actively install software that the user didn't knowingly download from a reputable site. It is extremely unsafe to install a software package without knowing exactly what it is, where it came from, how it got downloaded to your computer and whether or not it has a good reputation. Anyone whose Mac is infected by this malware is absolutely at fault.

In case it ever comes to that point, Sophos Anti-Virus for Mac is FREE.

Sophos is not recommended, as it can actually increase your Mac's vulnerability. Don't use it.

 

[gamer.pro.2000]

You all really need to do some research before posting "Don't install anything that you didn't want". Granted, if you have a password on your Mac, which you SHOULD do, this won't happen, but if you're one of the average computer illiterate people out there, this application installs itself without any prompts through Safari. Safari recognizes it as a "safe download" and opens a disc image that infects your machine. You can find out more in the removal instructions from BleepingComputer:
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/virus-removal/remove-mac-defender

 

[GGJstudios]

this application installs itself without any prompts through Safari.

No, it doesn't. The installer may launch, but the user has to actively complete the installation process, including entering their admin password. It does not install itself.

 

[mattnotis]

No, it doesn't. The installer may launch, but the user has to actively complete the installation process, including entering their admin password. It does not install itself.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was (almost) infected a few times the past couple of days. I started freaking out when the installer thing started downloading and promptly exited the installer when it popped up on my screen.

 

[GGJstudios]

Thanks for clearing that up. I was (almost) infected a few times the past couple of days. I started freaking out when the installer thing started downloading and promptly exited the installer when it popped up on my screen.

After you exit the installer, simply drag it to the Trash and check your Login Items in System Preferences > Accounts > youraccount to make sure nothing was added there. For more information, read this: Mac Virus/Malware Info

 

[nitro912gr]

it was just a matter of time.

At least it ask for password and can ring a bell or two for experienced users.
As for non experienced users it may be a good idea to keep them with a non-administration enabled account till they get some experience.

I prepared myself psychologically for that, after all I use windows as well for years.

 

[fmaxwell]

You come off as smug. "Good" - really? I guess calling me a microsoft shill and being shown how wrong you are made you want to try and school me? Whatever.

You should be embarrassed that you came off as a Microsoft shill in your postings, not happy that I was wrong in believing you were one. If you don't like being "schooled," you should strive for more consistency and less hypocrisy.

Neither you or I have any actual statistics on how many think or do not think Mac's can get viruses/etc based on Apple's marketing. So your smugness is unfounded.

You asserted that this was spreading because Apple's advertising lead users to incorrectly believe that they were immune to all forms of malware. Now you admit that you made those claims with no statistical basis; you're criticizing me for taking you at your word when disputing your claims!

If you think by me saying ONE of the problems is Apple's marketing means I solely blame Apple as you're trying to imply - then you need some reading comprehension skills.

Don't make straw man arguments. I never asserted that you "solely" blamed Apple. I said that you blamed them. I certainly assumed that you also blamed the authors of the malware, the sites on which it was hosted, and, probably, the users who didn't take reasonable precautions.

As to my "reading comprehension skills," I've been published in two national technical magazines, a mass-market consumer electronics magazine, and have served as a consultant who reviewed and edited computer books for a Fortune 500 publisher. If I interpret your writing to be other than as you intended, it's a negative reflection on your writing skills, not my reading comprehension.

 

[John.B]

It's ridiculous comments like both of these that offer nothing of value to this thread. To claim that you can determine the knowledge, intelligence or technical experience of anyone based on the OS they choose to use is to display a monumental lack of reasoning and understanding. You can't determine the "intellectual level" of any user base of any OS.

Agree completely. I switched because I didn't want to devote the time needed to maintain Windows PCs, not because I didn't know how.

 

[MacMan86]

You all really need to do some research before posting "Don't install anything that you didn't want". Granted, if you have a password on your Mac, which you SHOULD do, this won't happen, but if you're one of the average computer illiterate people out there, this application installs itself without any prompts through Safari. Safari recognizes it as a "safe download" and opens a disc image that infects your machine. You can find out more in the removal instructions from BleepingComputer:
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/virus-removal/remove-mac-defender

That is incorrect. If the user has not set a password, the password prompt will still appear and the user would have to press OK to submit a blank password.

 

[JAT]

We can't all know everything about everything.

No, but you should know enough to use it properly. This is really about the internet, not the OS. People are making this into Win vs Mac, of course, but it's a trojan, so that is really a usage issue. If you don't know how to recognize 99% of scams, then maybe the internet isn't for you. I could probably make a bunch of stupid analogies about cars or skiing or yellow lines in factories, but suffice it to say: People should learn something about everything that they use.

Some of you should ask yourselves just how much you know about every appliance, heating and cooling system and vehicle you own.

You are not the first to say that. But why does that question come up? If there is any reason mentioned in this thread for calling large groups of people stupid or idiot, this would be it. Apparently people choose to be ignorant? Ugh. Maybe I'll just quote myself:

I know enough about my appliances, computers, cars, etc. to know what to look for and to figure out if I can repair something myself. Why don't others? Why don't you?

200 years ago, everyone knew how to handle whatever technology they had. Yes, it was simpler by far, but there was still a learning curve. But people learned. WTF happened?

Just to clarify, I don't know offhand how to do many of the repairs that I can do. I learn how as they come up. Or, I learn that I can't or won't do certain things. Like oil changes...worth the piddling cost every time because I am NOT interested.

 

[samcraig]

FYI - my last reply to you on this matter

You should be embarrassed that you came off as a Microsoft shill in your postings, not happy that I was wrong in believing you were one. If you don't like being "schooled," you should strive for more consistency and less hypocrisy.



You asserted that this was spreading because Apple's advertising lead users to incorrectly believe that they were immune to all forms of malware. Now you admit that you made those claims with no statistical basis; you're criticizing me for taking you at your word when disputing your claims!



Don't make straw man arguments. I never asserted that you "solely" blamed Apple. I said that you blamed them. I certainly assumed that you also blamed the authors of the malware, the sites on which it was hosted, and, probably, the users who didn't take reasonable precautions.

As to my "reading comprehension skills," I've been published in two national technical magazines, a mass-market consumer electronics magazine, and have served as a consultant who reviewed and edited computer books for a Fortune 500 publisher. If I interpret your writing to be other than as you intended, it's a negative reflection on your writing skills, not my reading comprehension.

1. Why should I be embarrassed because you resorted to 3rd grade name calling. I'm not. If anyone should be embarrassed, it should be you for jumping to conclusions and making fast judgments about someone who happens to disagree with you. Says far more about you then it does me. But I see this is standard protocol for you. In a recent post of yours, you resort to calling a poster a "little turd". Nice and mature there...

2. I have no statistical evidence, nor do you. I also wasn't smug with my opinion. What I do have, however is over 20 years in marketing and PR along with the knowledge of hundreds of posts, articles, messages about Apple and it's supposedly inability to have it's OS compromised. So while I might not have an actual # - I can speak with some authority on public perception. I know - big deal right? Fortunately, I don't live to please or convince you. Which brings me to #3.

3. Who gives a rats behind where you've been published. That doesn't mean you have superior or even normal reading comprehension skills. I've been published too - in the number of thousands of articles. Big deal. And that's the best faulty logic I've seen lately "It's can't be me so it must be you" type of argument. Right. Clearly because YOU can't understand something I've written, it must be me. It couldn't possibly be YOU. Got it.

Well we won't have to worry about that since, as I wrote above, I won't be replying to you on this matter anymore. Have a great weekend...

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No, but you should know enough to use it properly.

Define properly. Who said these users don't know how to run their software? Being gullible is different from being stupid.

You are not the first to say that. But why does that question come up? If there is any reason mentioned in this thread for calling large groups of people stupid or idiot, this would be it. Apparently people choose to be ignorant? Ugh. Maybe I'll just quote myself:

So you're saying that your reason for being a virtual flaming ball of hate is that people choose not to be experts in computers. Are you an expert in repairing your furnace, your car, your roof and everything else you can think of? I doubt it. There aren't too many Macguivers around. People tend to study one area. Many people use computers for utility (e-mail, shopping, etc.) and have no interest in learning about 'tech' things. This condescension from people who think they do know such things just shows more ignorance from other areas of life. It's a pure sign of immaturity to attack others based on their lack of knowledge in an area you seem to value. I do know a LOT of areas of knowledge and probably more about computer operating systems than most on here, but I don't have to flaunt it or make fun of others for no spending hours and hours memorizing Unix shell commands, script programming, etc. Some people like to spend their time doing other things. You don't seem to get that.

Just to clarify, I don't know offhand how to do many of the repairs that I can do. I learn how as they come up. Or, I learn that I can't or won't do certain things. Like oil changes...worth the piddling cost every time because I am NOT interested.

So you admit you don't know jack squat about those things and don't want to, but you feel it's OK to make fun of victims of this trojan because they're apparently too stupid. Not ignorant. STUPID. Think about it.

 

[munkery]

I found another example of Windows malware that uses privilege escalation.
http://mnin.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-i-enjoyed-tiggersyzor.html
Interestingly, privilege escalation is achieved via exploiting a previously patched exploit using code from an exploit database website.

The following condenses the information from one of my previous posts:

When comparing OS X to Windows in relation to privilege escalation through roughly the last 10 years, you have to include the factor that remote vulnerabilities provide system level access in Windows XP admin accounts. Many users run admin accounts in Windows XP for day to day computing. With this factored into the comparison, the number of privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Windows dwarfs that of OS X.

When comparing only the most recent releases of these OSs, Mac OS X Snow Leopard only has 4 privilege escalation vulnerabilities while Windows 7 has 58. Only 2 of these Mac vulnerabilities would have provided system level access if successfully exploited. At least 47 of these Windows 7 vulnerabilities are related to exploits in the wild or publicly available proof of concepts that provided system level access via exploitation. One of these Windows win32k.sys vulnerabilities is public and unpatched for 287 days as of today. http://www.vupen.com/english/zerodays/

I think there should be some kind of extra protection in OS X to fight against such malware/spyware crap.

There already is that extra protection via XProtect built in to SL. But, like any antivirus software it is not 100% effective.

Also, relying on software leads to complacency. This is dangerous given that any software that provides this type of function, such as AV, is never 100% protection.

If you do want to rely on software, I recommend using ClamXav. It is updated more frequently than XProtect and detects threats for Windows as well. But, I don't recommend relying on software. See the links in my sig for more details.

It's not the users fault for the most part as I have understood that you can easily get this malware without violating any safe practices.

You have to enter your password into an installer that was automatically downloaded from the Internet after being redirected to a FUD website. Users should know that they shouldn't authenticate anything that is automatically downloaded in that manner.

Microsoft uses signed drivers, etc. to make sure you don't have some hacked driver in the field that's really screwing your computer up; I don't see anything like that on the Mac, but then there aren't a lot of 3rd party drivers floating around either.

True, Apple stays in house for the most part in relation to drivers. Regardless of a driver being signed or not, the needed capacity for components to hook into each other leaves open the ability for malware to hook into preexisting drivers. The only protection from malware doing this is a good implementation of DAC, which is disabled in Windows XP admin accounts.

Also, Apple installers verify MD5 checksums to make sure the data for updates has not been altered. I suspect this is true of any OS. I also suspect this is true for Adobe's update installer. Even the Sparkle framework, the free software update system that is used in most third party software for Macs, verifies MD5 checksums before completing installation.

 

[AidenShaw]

....which is disabled in Windows XP admin accounts.

...and which, of course, has been fixed in every version of Windows after XP.

Don't you realize how silly it looks when you are comparing Windows 2001 with Apple OSX 2011? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare Windows 2011 with Apple OSX 2011?

 

[munkery]

...and which, of course, has been fixed in every version of Windows after XP.

Windows XP still has 53% of the global market share. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

Don't you realize how silly it looks when you are comparing Windows 2001 with Apple OSX 2011?

Actually, I compared Mac OS X vs Windows across all versions of the OSs.

But, any comparison of OS security that includes Windows XP is also relevant because Windows XP still has 53% of the global market share.

Malware development will mostly target Windows XP until it's market share is displaced by other OSs because XP is a much easier target.

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare Windows 2011 with Apple OSX 2011?

Also, I did compare OS X 2011 to Windows 2011:

When comparing only the most recent releases of these OSs, Mac OS X Snow Leopard only has 4 privilege escalation vulnerabilities while Windows 7 has 58. Only 2 of these Mac vulnerabilities would have provided system level access if successfully exploited. At least 47 of these Windows 7 vulnerabilities are related to exploits in the wild or publicly available proof of concepts that provided system level access via exploitation. One of these Windows win32k.sys vulnerabilities is public and unpatched for 287 days as of today. http://www.vupen.com/english/zerodays/

Scary, there is a public and unpatched vulnerability related to Stuxnet for which documentation to aid turning that vulnerability into an exploit is easily found. http://www.exploit-db.com/bypassing-uac-with-user-privilege-under-windows-vista7-mirror/

 

[maclaptop]

It really goes back to the truthful response among Harley riders when people say they should wear helmets, "The best protection is what you have IN your head, not ON it!"

Accidents? What Accidents?

Hit by a drunk driver headed toward the bike at 100mph. Impossible.

 

[GGJstudios]

Accidents? What Accidents?

Hit by a drunk driver headed toward the bike at 100mph. Impossible.

And just like antivirus for the Mac, a helmet won't save you in that situation. Being aware enough to notice the drunk and getting out of the way will save you.

 

[JAT]

So you're saying that your reason for being a virtual flaming ball of hate is that people choose not to be experts in computers.


So you admit you don't know jack squat about those things and don't want to, but you feel it's OK to make fun of victims of this trojan because they're apparently too stupid. Not ignorant. STUPID. Think about it.

I defy you to prove I have been these things.

Pay attention.

I won't even bother to comment on your hate (and therefore extremely biased opinion of my comments) of me, for no apparent reason.

No, I have to say something. Did you even read the parts of my post you quoted and commented on? At all? Yours is ****ing ironic ********.

 

[JAT]

...and which, of course, has been fixed in every version of Windows after XP.

Don't you realize how silly it looks when you are comparing Windows 2001 with Apple OSX 2011? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare Windows 2011 with Apple OSX 2011?

I still have to use XP every day. It's crap. Saying it isn't current is silly.

And just like antivirus for the Mac, a helmet won't save you in that situation. Being aware enough to notice the drunk and getting out of the way will save you.

Weird, we were just talking about something today:
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2117874.shtml?cat=1

Update: He died.

 

[GGJstudios]

Weird, we were just talking about something today:
http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2117874.shtml?cat=1

Update: He died.

I'm sorry to hear he died, but that could have been avoided if he was keeping a safe distance between him and the car in front.

 

[fmaxwell]

FYI - my last reply to you on this matter

And just as filled with self-contradiction and hypocrisy as the rest of them.

1. Why should I be embarrassed because you resorted to 3rd grade name calling."

Seriously? "Shill" is a name used by 3rd graders? Again, you should be embarrassed that your writing lead an intelligent, insightful reader (me) to conclude that you were a Microsoft shill.

2. I have no statistical evidence, nor do you. I also wasn't smug with my opinion.

Actually, you were. You smugly passed of your opinion as fact, which is what annoyed so many people in this thread.

3. Who gives a rats behind where you've been published? That doesn't mean you have superior, or even normal, reading comprehension skills.

Fine. I didn't want to brag, but I standardized tests revealed that I had a college reading ability when I was in elementary school. I took the liberty of fixing those two sentences. Your editors must just love you.