Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I disagree. The optics of "the first Mac ransomware" has made this all about Apple and quite possibly may be something that affects the reputation of the Mac brand for quite awhile.

Regardless, my response was simply saying "that's not likely" to the question "what if the 'fixed' version of Transmission was hacked like the 'bad' version?"

If users install a trojan from an insecure 3rd party website, that's not Apple's fault. There is literally nothing Apple can do to prevent that, short of locking down the OS so much that it's impossible to install software on Macs.
 
If users install a trojan from an insecure 3rd party website, that's not Apple's fault. There is literally nothing Apple can do to prevent that, short of locking down the OS so much that it's impossible to install software on Macs.

But reality and perceptions differ which is what he was alluding to. There really isn't anything Apple can do but if this makes rounds outside of the tech media they're going to have to at least make a statement. People think their boxes are immune to this type of stuff and the education needs to come from Apple directly.
 
Let's not try and deny that 99.5% of torrent use is for porn :)

To be fair, some of that porn is shared without the permission of copyright holders. I've heard about shall we say less-socially-acceptable porn companies essentially blackmailing porn pirates into very large settlements to avoid the embarrassment of a court date in which their particular fetish or sexual orientation will become part of the public record. They're worse than the RIAA claiming millions of dollars of lost revenue from a few songs.
 
This incident shows the opposite. The certificate is not the same that is usually used by the developers of Transmission. Likely it was stolen from a legit developer.
Let's never lock anything, because keys might be stolen and used by criminals!
 
Doesn't this situation makes you very angry at Apple? It's all Apple's fault.

We have to deal with this crap because of Apple and Apple alone. Why? Mac App Store.

Not only is the MAS terrible as an app itself, those stupid restrictions that even Apple doesn't respect (see xCode) only mean that Mac users won't get a trustworthy download/install/update/uninstall method and a single trustworthy place to get their software from.

Transmission is one of those apps that make a Mac "worthy". A true classic app. Beautiful, lightweight, great functional interface.

It's time for our stores to get the "native" treatment (itunes too) and for Apple to change their policies not only what is/isn't allowed as an app, but what permissions/restrictions the app gets.

Then, we can have a single, trustworthy, place to download software from.

Unless this was sarcasm, I fail to see how this is Apple's fault.. In fact, it would be hard to push a malware through the MAS, if those blokes are scrutinising each app submission correctly. SO, as a matter of fact, MAS is a way forward, not backward, as we can have Apple be looking at the apps properly before releasing them to public, instead of having the public download from the wild internet with attached malware.
 
This is the problem code signing is designed to solve.

The code is certified by a trusted third party (e.g., Apple App Store) or at the very least signed with a certificate that is owned by a trusted developer (e.g., for non-app store apps you still sign your code with a certificate issued by a trusted third party like Apple or Microsoft in the case of Windows). If the developer is found to be doing dodgy stuff, the CA revokes their certificate and then the code no longer runs.

This is the plus side of code signing, the need to re-download all your OS X installers if the certificates expire is the downside.

I'll take code signing thanks.

Do you know how easy it is to get valid code signing? I've got dozens of them from Apple. And one can easily sign up and $99 later they have a valid signature.

In the time it takes them to revoke it, these guys can be on to the next one. And at $400 to unlock each infected machine, they can make up that $99 real quick (and that's if they don't use fake credit cards to obtain the signature in the first place).

It's far from being a totally safe way to go. We saw this malware get installed with valid code signing, what makes you think that others can't be too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect



transmission-29.png

This weekend, a notice appeared on Transmissionbt.com warning users that version 2.90 of the popular Mac BitTorrent client downloaded from their site may have been infected with malware. The warning reads:Reuters reports that the infected download contained the first "Ransomware" found on the Mac platform. Ransomware is a type of malware that encrypts a user's hard drive and demands payment in order to unencrypt it. This type of attack has been increasingly popular on the PC, but this is the first time it has been seen on the Mac.

According to Reuters, Apple is aware of the issue and has already revoked "a digital certificate from a legitimate Apple developer that enabled the rogue software to install on Macs."

The malware in question is said to delay encrypting the user's hard drive for 3 days, so we may see the first reports of those affected as early as Monday. Transmissionbt.com offers instructions on how to see you are affected (above). If you don't use the Transmission software, there is nothing you need to do at this time.

Update: Technical details about the malware.

Update 2: Transmissionbt.com says version 2.92 of Transmission will actively remove the malware.

Article Link: First Mac Ransomware Found in Transmission BitTorrent Client

I noticed that when I checked the version via finder the version showed 2.90. I launch the app and do an about, it shows 2.92. MAKE SURE YOU DOUBLE CHECK!!!!

MACMAD
 
I noticed that when I checked the version via finder the version showed 2.90. I launch the app and do an about, it shows 2.92. MAKE SURE YOU DOUBLE CHECK!!!!

MACMAD

I just installed 2.92 and the about window shoes the version as 2.92. But the finder shows 2.91...
 
KPandian1 said:

"Are we sure this is not an act by the DOJ or its lackeys (ex. FBI) paying Apple a sample of things to come?

After all the download is from the app's legitimate site - you just have to force/bribe one person inside!

This is meant as a talking point - hope it is not anywhere close to reality!"

That makes absolutely no sense. Apple has nothing at all to do with this story.

Yes, I Know. I specifically printed " ... from the app's legitimate site ... ", not Apple! The "... paying Apple ..." means payback by the offended USA governments.

Blame is squarely on the app's (the application's) website - from where people are downloading the ransom-ware.

Do you see anything in my post that blames "Apple", the iPhone, Mac company that writes the software?
 
Cant really blame Apple for data loss if you
(a) Don't make regular backups
(b) Install bit torrent clients (from a website no less) Which have little or no legitimate use other than piracy

This is hilarious. The Apple defence people sure are quick to draw their guns in defence of Apple these days. Nobody is blaming Apple for this ransomware. It is important for users to be aware it is out there so they can take appropriate actions. But informing people it exists is not attacking your precious Apple. You can calm down a little bit.

Reading TheHorrorNerd's posting history is funny though. This is a guy who defended Apple on the Error 53 bricking. He attacks MacRumors for posting about the HoloLens because a non-Apple thread offends him so much he can't just ignore it. He even says people who had their phone bricked by the 1970 bug should take accountability because it's not Apple who bricked it.

Every post in his history is just pure blind defence of Apple no matter how wrong Apple is. All I can do is feel sorry for the guy.
 
to be expected when people use BitTorrent, I have zero sympathy for people who pirate stuff!

Bit Torrent is just a file transmission protocol that has far more uses outside of just pirating. Many larger, open source projects use bittorrent to help assist with their distribution of media.

Most Linux sources are now available via BitTorrent. This is an ideal solution since many Linux variants are education sponsored and don't have significant capital to support a standard web distribution model.

While most people who don't understand computing very well, might say something like this, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the intention of BitTorrent and other Peer 2 Peer file transmission protocols.
 
Do we now agree with Apple wanting everything sand boxed on the mac app store?
Now that this vulnerability is public you can bet that every hacker will be looking to break into servers and inject code somehow into software that people download on the mac.

There are lots of apps that contain open source components, what if those components have bad code added in as well?

I'm not sure why an app like Transmission needs root access or access beyond it's own set of files and a download area. It could operate fine being sand boxed. That would be the best protection. That's why you never hear about anything like that happening on iOS, it just cant.

It's in the Mac App Store guidelines:

18.4. Apps that enable illegal file sharing will be rejected

Transmission has an option that lets it automatically add .torrent files without you having to do it yourself. This comes in useful if you're downloading a lot of things all at once - Legal uses... Humble Bundles and Archive.org stuff. I don't know if that would be easy to make happen in a sandbox considering apps like Alfred had to change to get in the MAS. Sandboxing is fine in most cases, but it doesn't make sense in a lot of cases either.

Open source code is open source, you can read everything that's going to be in the build you make.

Any website can be attacked. Apple, your bank, governments, etc aren't 100% safe from this either.
 
Absolutely no word from the Transmission developers on how their app download got infected?

That's a bit concerning.

Nothing at all it seems. Even on their forums the responses are very brief and link to Paloalto or the updated version. This is a major security issue for which they are fully responsible. If it came from their servers, they are to blame. It is as simple as that. They ought to have come up with a press release explaining how this could have happened and at least a public apology. This could have serious repercussions for them.
 
Bit Torrent is just a file transmission protocol that has far more uses outside of just pirating. Many larger, open source projects use bittorrent to help assist with their distribution of media.

Most Linux sources are now available via BitTorrent. This is an ideal solution since many Linux variants are education sponsored and don't have significant capital to support a standard web distribution model.

While most people who don't understand computing very well, might say something like this, you are fundamentally misunderstanding the intention of BitTorrent and other Peer 2 Peer file transmission protocols.
Could you explain why someone using OSX would need to worry about downloading Linux? If I were to be interested in using Linux I would grab a PC and stick it on to that. Linux is a great project and long may it live, but why would you put an open source project on your Mac if you were remotely worried about security?
 
I've been using transmission since July 1/14. No issues?? Does Malwarebytes work on this? Just looked, and I'm using version 2.84(14306).
Yes, MalwareBytes has been updated to address this, but since you are still on 2.84 and never updated to 2.90, you are not infected.
 
Cant really blame Apple for data loss if you
(...)
(b) Install bit torrent clients (from a website no less) Which have little or no legitimate use other than piracy

"from a website no less"?? Where do you get your software?
CDs from magazines? Ah, no, wait, the've been infected before.
Maybe App stores? Ah, no, they've been infected before – and the ones that still didn't WILL eventually, that's the nature of software.
Or do you just use the software that came with your computer? Oh, but those have also been infected before!

As for the "no legitimate use": I hope the rock under which you live is a beautiful one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skinned66
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.