My bet is that you didn't have a trojan. I say that because many of the things that it reports as being threats aren't really threats.
You know what... I've seen too many threads mentioning this iAntiVirus junk, so let's ake a look at the
threat list.
iAntiVirus detects 96 threats. Pretty good, right? We'll see about that...
Application.OSX.* - 16 "threats"
- 11/16 are legitimate applications, used for system administration in schools and internet cafes. They _could_ be used maliciously, but they can and are used for a number of legitimate purposes (such as security auditing.)
- 3/16 are dedicated keyloggers. (A couple admin tools also can keylog, but these three are primarily keyloggers.)
- 1/16 are proofs of concept.
- 1/16 is a log management tool for a logging program. It doesn't log anything -- it just manages text files. Yes, I'm serious.
Backdoor.* - 10 "threats"
- 1/10 is a Classic virus. It is 100%, completely inert on OS X.
- 9/10 require user intervention to run. As in the user must run the backdoor itself.
DDoS.OSX.CometShower - 1 "threat"
This requires the user to install it. If activated, it can be used to perform a DDoS attack on a target, but that's about it.
Eicar_Test_Files - 1 "threat"
Not a threat. It's a test file used to verify that antivirus programs work correctly. I think it's a little deceptive to list this as a "threat"...
Email-Flooder.OSX.* - 3 "threats"
All three of these are mass mailing tools. They are not infectious, do not run without user intervention, and can't do much other than... uh... send e-mail.
Exploit.EvilGrade.a - 1 "threat"
The description that iAntiVirus provides is kinda deceptive. It's more a proof-of-concept than an "exploit tool."
Exploit.Exploit.OSX.CVE* - 2 "threats"
Both of these are PoCs.
Exploit.OSX.ARDAgent - 1 "threat"
My best guess is that it detects
this PoC.
Exploit.OSX.CVE-* - 8 "threats"
Funny, but none of these seem to be discrete threats... instead, iAntiVirus claims to detect code that exploits these vulnerabilities. As far as I can tell, none of these have actually be exploited by malicious code "in the wild." That, and the most recent of the exploits is from 2007 -- and they've all been patched.
Exploit.OSX.Small - 1 "threat"
PoC.
Hacktool.MacOS.UGMPortScanner - 1 "threat"
It's a port scanner. That's it. Oh, and it's for Mac OS 9 and below... and thus isn't even an OS X binary.
Hacktool.OSX.* - 10 "threats", 1 potential threat
- 1/11 reveals the IP of someone logged on to AIM. That's it. Oh, and the method it uses is obsolete. (Hacktool.OSX.AimSniff)
- 2/11 are "brute force" tools (i.e. penetration testing tools.) (Hacktool.OSX.BrutalGift & Hacktool.OSX.Cyanide)
- 1/11 is a tool for extracting audio from pcap dumps. (Hacktool.OSX.iChatSniff)
- 1/11 is a goddamn joke. It can "scan websites for web links" and do other crazy stuff... like open a telnet connection. No, I'm not making this up. (Hacktool.OSX.Heirophant)
- 1/11 is a password cracker (Hacktool.OSX.macKrack)
- 2/11 are penetration testing tools (Hacktool.OSX.MacSmurf & Hacktool.OSX.ManOfTheMiddle). It's worth noting that MacSmurf is mostly useless now that sane admins protect against smurf attacks (thanks, in no small part, to auditors using tools such as this one...)
- 1/11 is a SYN flood tool. (Hacktool.OSX.SYNer)
- 1/11 *might* be a threat. (Hacktool.OSX.UnderHand). I have been unable to find any reports of this being in the wild.
- 1/11 is a generic script-kiddie flooding tool. (Hacktool.OSX.ZapAttack)
Port-Flooder.OSX.Tsunami - 1 "threat"
Another kiddie flooding tool.
RogueAntiSpyware.OSX.Imunizator - 1 "threat"
Well gee PC Tools... don't you think it's kinda sleazy to list the same threat twice? This is the same as RogueAntiSpyware.OSX.MacSweeper.
RogueAntiSpyware.OSX.MacSweeper - 1 "threat"
I'll let PC Tools themselves describe this sucker:
"It poses no threat and it does not have the capability to propagate or spread itself."
Rootkit.MacOS.Weapox - 1 threat
This is a rootkit. Yes, it works. I've neither seen it nor heard of it in the wild, but it could be used as a real threat.
Trojan-PSW.OSX.Corpref.A - 1 threat
Trojan. It's been found in the wild, but it requires you to enter your admin password.
Trojan.MacOS.* - 4 "threats"
Four more viruses for classic. You know I'm starting to see a pattern here...
Trojan.OSX.DNSChanger* - 2 "threats"
Both require admin passwords to operate. Actually, they're the same trojan, just one's rebranded. Again, it's pretty obvious that PC Tools is trying to pad their numbers by listing them separately.
Trojan.OSX.Lamzev.a - 1 threat(?)
Couldn't find much about this online other than it exists. I'll assume that PC Tools is telling the truth.
Trojan.OSX.RSPlug.C - 1 "threat"
Requires admin password. Does the same thing as the Trojan.OSX.DNSChanger* variants, but is technically a different threat.
Trojan.Trojan.OSX.RSPlug.* - 2 "threats"
Same as Trojan.OSX.RSPlug.C, but with a slightly different payload. It's a pretty big stretch to list this threat three times...
Virus.MacOS.* - 21 "threats"
This is absurd. These are *ALL* viruses for Mac OS 9 and below (aka Classic). It's actually impossible for them to run on the Intel machines, and they require virtualization on PowerPC Macs.
Virus.OSX.Leap - 1 threat
Technically self-reproducing, but requires users to manually launch the binary to infect their machine. PowerPC only. Still, I'll count it as a threat.
Worm.MacOS.Autostart - 1 "threat"
Sigh. Another virus that won't work on anything other than Classic.
Worm.OSX.Inqtana - 1 "threat"
Proof of concept. And the exploit it uses was patched years ago.
Worm.OSX.Renepo / "Opener" - 1 threat
Well... it does do malicious stuff, and it has been seen in the wild, so I guess we'll count this.
---
So let's review with some fun stats.
Of the 96 "threats" that iAntiVirus protects against:
-
28 are for Classic only.
-
5 are proofs-of-concept.
-
4 are the same as an already-listed threat. (IMHO it's pretty damn deceptive to list these as discrete threats.)
-
8 appear just to be references to exploits with no mention of what malicious software (if any) is detected. (What the hell?)
-
3 are "flooding" tools that could be used by script kiddies. They can't infect anything, they can't do anything on their own, and they can't do any serious damage to anyone. Two of them won't even work against any *nix box that's been secured by a half-sane admin.
-
3 are password cracking or brute forcing tools. Again: they can't infect, and they require a human operator.
-
3 are keyloggers that require manual installation.
-
9 are backdoors that must be explicitly started and/or installed (and that are defeated by the use of a firewall.)
-
15 are penetration testing tools that _could_ be misused, but that pose no threat to the machine they reside on.
-
3 are just WTFs. One manages logs, another uses an old trick to (drumroll) display an IP address, and the third does nothing that can't already be done with telnet, curl and grep.
So what does that leave?
-
2 appear to be threats, but I couldn't find enough information to be sure what iAntiVirus is actually looking for.
-
1 is a real, live rootkit.
-
1 is a PowerPC-only worm (no, it's not a virus despite PC Tools' classification) that requires the user to execute it.
-
2 are trojans that change DNS settings (and that require user intervention and privilege escalation to take effect). These two threats are listed as five separate entries.
-
1 threat is described by PC Tools themselves thusly:
"It poses no threat and it does not have the capability to propagate or spread itself.". That didn't stop them from ranking it with a mid-level threat rating *and* listing it under two separate names though...
-
1 is a worm that's been seen in the wild.
Some more stats:
Number of self-propagating threats that iAntiVirus protects against: 0. There are none.
Number of threats that iAntiVirus has listed multiple times under different names: 3
Number of known trojans in the wild that iAntiVirus doesn't claim to offer protection against: 2
---
So in summary, I stand by my claim that iAntiVirus is junk. It's marketed in an exceptionally deceptive manner, will detect and remove a bunch of stuff that isn't a threat, and preys on people who don't do due diligence before handing over their time, CPU power, and (if you buy a one year license for the "paid version") money.
Now can we *please* stop recommending this POS?