Half a million Mac computers 'infected with malware'

[Simon]

More than half a million Apple computers have been infected with the Flashback Trojan, according to a Russian anti-virus firm.

An investigation by Dr Web suggests that about 600,000 Macs have installed the malware - potentially allowing them to be hijacked and used as a "botnet".

It says that more than half that number are based in the US.

Apple has released a security update, but users who have not installed the patch remain exposed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17623422

[Rik]

And so it begins...

[Steve]

Thankfully mine isn't one of them.

[Rik]

Give it time, Steve, they're only just getting around to Europe. 

[Tacitus]

Information on how to check if you are infected and how to remove the malware (requires terminal) here:-

http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/trojan-downloader_osx_flashback_i.shtml

[Rik]

Thanks, Tac. 

[Steve]

I only had to copy'n'paste 2 lines.

[Tacitus]

I only had to copy'n'paste 2 lines.

Me too, but I've yet to check the laptop.....   TBH I think you would be unlucky to get infected.  Interestingly I always run as *user* and keep a separate admin account, so I don't know whether this has any effect.  Some say this is unnecessary, but back in the day it was always regarded as good practice.

[Tacitus]

Thinking about it since my last post, maybe disabling Java in all my web browsers has something to do with me not being infected, since the attack vector relies on unpatched versions of Java.

[Bill]

I note that if it detects ClamXAV (amongst others) is installed it quietly deletes itself, so that probably covers a lot of Mac users- they're not all as gullible as the Windows mob likes to believe

I suspect this post on tbb sums it up nicely:

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/mac/t/4110357-flashback-trojan-affects-half-a-million-macs.html

[Tacitus]

I note that if it detects ClamXAV (amongst others) is installed it quietly deletes itself.......

Makes you wonder if someone is testing the waters for something bigger and more serious... 

[Gary]

I don't have the Java plugin installed, so that cut that vector off. I wont be installing it either.

[pctech]

That'll put a stop to the smug Mac owners argument that malware and viruses are a Windows problem and thus that the Mac is superior as its invulnerable to malware and viruses.

Someone sent this around at work yesterday and one of my colleagues who is constantly banging on about Mac superiority (he's still running a G5 Macbook) was very quiet for a change.

[zappaDPJ]

If anything it's an indication of the popularity of Apple products insofar the hackers now feel it's worth their while exploiting them. However the fact still remains that the PC/Mac virus ratio is something like 100,000,000/1

[Simon]

Well, this is a tech thread, not a platform bashing arena, so let's not turn it into one, again, Mitch.

[pctech]

Fair point Simon.

[Simon]

Thanks. 

[Tacitus]

......its invulnerable to malware and viruses.

Can I just point out that no platform is immune to malware and, that a virus is self replicating which this isn't.  And, with respect Steve, I do get hacked off with the inference that I'm 'smug' simply because I use Macs, even though this probably wasn't directed at me.

Sorry, but it does irritate me.  Over and out.

[Simon]

It was Mitch (Pctech) who made the 'smug' comment, Tac, and it was addressed. 

[Niall]

I'll be keeping a close eye on this, as I'm still rather keen to get that silly expensive macbook pro I was looking at the other day. I'm going to wait for the new ones to come out in a couple of months though, and in the meantime pay all my debts off (all three of them, woo ). I need to investigate whether my Line6 amp works on apple hardware too, if not I'll get an ugly MSI laptop I think

[Gary]

I'll be keeping a close eye on this, as I'm still rather keen to get that silly expensive macbook pro I was looking at the other day. I'm going to wait for the new ones to come out in a couple of months though, and in the meantime pay all my debts off (all three of them, woo ). I need to investigate whether my Line6 amp works on apple hardware too, if not I'll get an ugly MSI laptop I think

You could Google that question  Also if its a new Mac it wont come with Java anyway.

[Tacitus]

Out in June according to the latest rumour...

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/04/06/reports.center.around.ivy.bridge.anti.glare.glass/

If they really do have anti-reflective glass then I'm up for one as my current MacBook Pro is coming up to 5 years old. 

[Niall]

You could Google that question  Also if its a new Mac it wont come with Java anyway.

I know, I meant that I was off to look

[Niall]

Out in June according to the latest rumour...

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/04/06/reports.center.around.ivy.bridge.anti.glare.glass/

If they really do have anti-reflective glass then I'm up for one as my current MacBook Pro is coming up to 5 years old. 

I was looking into the current models for photography & developing images. The general consensus was that the matte screens cause images to be too contrasty, which could obviously cause you a lot of problems processing images as you'll not know what the true image looks like. The anti reflective screens are apparently okay though, but I didn't see any images to confirm this when I looked.

[TheMonkey]

That'll put a stop to the smug Mac owners argument that malware and viruses are a Windows problem and thus that the Mac is superior as its invulnerable to malware and viruses.

Someone sent this around at work yesterday and one of my colleagues who is constantly banging on about Mac superiority (he's still running a G5 Macbook) was very quiet for a change.

This isn't an osx issue it's a java issue that macs don't even ship with any more.

You still got to install this bad boy so although it's not great and may catch a few out I think I'll still stay "smug" 

[Tacitus]

The general consensus was that the matte screens cause images to be too contrasty, which could obviously cause you a lot of problems processing images as you'll not know what the true image looks like.

That may be true, but I think most advanced amateurs calibrate their screens using something like ColorMunki or Spyder so you are more likely to get what you see on screen in the final print.

[Technical Ben]

True, but your always going to have "apps" with "bugs". Just because it's Java, does not mean there is not an exploit.
Oh how I wish we had true sandboxing.

[pctech]

I understand my comment may have caused some offence, it was not my intent at all.

Pretty much everyone still active on this forum comes across as rational and level headed so if I may I'd like to explain my earlier comment.

1. The nature of my day job means I only come across people who have a software or online service issue or just want some advice regarding minimum hardware specification prior to purchasing new equipment.

I work for an educational institution which is partly public funded so I am required to remain completely impartial when giving advice e.g. I have to say for example 'although the minimum specification indicates a Pentium 4 class CPU, an equivalent such as one manufactured by AMD will work absolutely fine provided it has the same or better clock speed', all my calls are recorded and any management can listen to those recordings.

I am not involved at all in the decisions regarding what and what isn't supported, I am simply told what I am to support and if necessary sent on a course.

Now some of the software I support simply will not run under Mac OS.

Personally I really couldn't care less what platforms are supported, I will help if I can but I can't make code work under an OS that won't support it.

In these cases I calmly explain this and the options regarding virtualisation or dual booting using Boot Camp.

At this point, the proportion I refer to launch into an angry tirade about how my employer is discriminating against Mac users and/or lecture me about how superior Macs are and so on.

I have also had the argument made that Macs are not vulnerable to viruses/malware which is why I mentioned it, that statement did not come from me.

I let them run out of steam and calmly explain that I and my colleagues aren't involved in support decisions and offer tham a compliants e-mail address.

At this point they say 'oh there's no point in me complaining' but there's obviously plenty of point in taking my time up while people wait on hold just to take out your frustration?

If you have done that in the past, spare a thought for the poor sod at the other end of the line who just wants to help, if they are anything like me they don't take pleasure in giving you bad news neither do they appreciatie angry monologues when there is nothing they can do, they do not seek confrontation and are there because they want to give customers a good service and solve problems, whatever platform that may be on.

Nearly ten years on I still get an enormous sense of satisfaction when I fix a particularly difficult problem for a customer or where I can point them in the right direction.

2. Since Macs started becoming popular I've made a point of watching the keynote speeches to see what is going to be made available so I have a fair idea what people who've bought new Macs will be using.

The attitude of the minority I have mentioned is encouraged by Apple's leadership, the parodies of its competitors and so on.

My earlier comment was bourne out of the hope it will now kill off some of the air of superiority and frankly childishness of the company and the Apple devotees as its boring to listen to so must be really boring to trot out time and time again.

At work the portfolio of Mac software is increasing but we are moving away from software to online hosted services which are OS independent.

Also for the record, I own and use an iPod Nano and buy a lot of music through iTunes because the small labels I buy from tend to be electronic distibution only now.

I sincerely hope I have explained myself clearly and that those that expressed offence are now not offended.

I would ask the mods to leave this post in place as a right of reply.

[Simon]

Thanks for the post, Mitch, we have no reason to remove it. 

I think any frustration relating to your comment was possibly borne from a sparodic history of often demeaning comments you have made on the forums about Apple, Macs and their users.  This topic was not posted as a dig at Macs, but as a serious news topic.  All I was doing was trying to keep the thread on topic, and not allow it to descend into another format war.   

[pctech]

I hope my post explains my previous comments which may have come across a little confrontational for which I wholeheartedly apologise, no offence was ever intended nor were my comments aimed at any individual.

Whether it is professionally or personally, if I have the tools and knowledge to fix someone's problem, I will, it's what I entered IT to do.

[Niall]

That may be true, but I think most advanced amateurs calibrate their screens using something like ColorMunki or Spyder so you are more likely to get what you see on screen in the final print.

True, but I can't see how a calibration tool like Spyder, to name but one, can compensate against this. You'd have to severely wash out an image to reduce the contrast in an image. If the screen, rather than the coating is to blame then yes it can be done, but if it's the coating then I fail to see how it can be corrected, as nothing you do in software can change how the hardware looks.

[Ardua]

Colour management - how long have you got? I use an IMac I7 and I am extremely happy with the printed output. Monitor calibration is essential but that is only part of the equation. You also need to ensure that you have a calibrated profile for your printer and, ideally, a programme such as Photoshop 5 or Lightroom 4 ( recommended) for soft proofing/printing. If you do not want to pay for a printer profile or for your own printer profiler then you have 2 options: one use the printer manufacturer's paper, inks and built-in profile. Use a 3rd party ink and you have introduced a variable. Or buy paper from firms like Permajet who will provide you with a bespoke profile if you can be bothered to print out 2 test pages. If you go the latter route then you must ensure that your test samples have no colour management applied. Abode has a colour print utility to avoid this issue. use Photoshop or Elements then there is a danger that colour management will be applied. My IMac has a shiny screen and I must admit that I cannot see what people worry about. I also print from a MacBook (matte). In sum, calibrate the monitor, get a printer profile and use colour management  via the software (ie, not the printer) and the results will be good.

Sorry if I have drifted from the original thread. I like my Mac for photography.

[Tacitus]

Colour management - how long have you got? I use an IMac I7 and I am extremely happy with the printed output. Monitor calibration is essential but that is only part of the equation. You also need to ensure that you have a calibrated profile for your printer and, ideally, a programme such as Photoshop 5 or Lightroom 4 ( recommended) for soft proofing/printing.

I agree about printer profiling - it is a vital part of the equation. 

My IMac has a shiny screen and I must admit that I cannot see what people worry about.

Depends on the circumstances where you use your iMac.  I use a LaCie monitor with my G5 but I'm adjacent to a window so have fitted a hood to it.  A useful site for this soft of thing is:  http://shop.colourconfidence.com/   The separate hoods they supply could possibly be altered to fit an iMac - currently they would fit a 21" but you would need to cut out a slot for the CD

I also use a MacBook Pro and the thought of using one with a glossy screen gives me a headache.......

I like my Mac for photography.

In the interests of balance I should add that all of this can be done on a PC......   

[Ardua]

In the interests of balance I should add that all of this can be done on a PC......   

Very true. Also by way of balance, I would suggest that Apple's aggressive pricing policy for professional products such as Aperture 3 has 'forced' Abode to slash the price of its latest Lightroom release to remain competitive.

For the PC software products that have no Mac-equivalent, I find that Parallels works just fine (with full virus protection of course).

[Rik]

I agree with all you've said. We were using Macs, with shiny CRT screens, to produce colour-managed work streams 20 years ago. Like decorating, it's all about the preparation - spend the time on that and you'll get the results on any platform. Just avoid sRGB colour space if at all possible.

[Niall]

Colour management - how long have you got? I use an IMac I7 and I am extremely happy with the printed output. Monitor calibration is essential but that is only part of the equation. You also need to ensure that you have a calibrated profile for your printer and, ideally, a programme such as Photoshop 5 or Lightroom 4 ( recommended) for soft proofing/printing. If you do not want to pay for a printer profile or for your own printer profiler then you have 2 options: one use the printer manufacturer's paper, inks and built-in profile. Use a 3rd party ink and you have introduced a variable. Or buy paper from firms like Permajet who will provide you with a bespoke profile if you can be bothered to print out 2 test pages. If you go the latter route then you must ensure that your test samples have no colour management applied. Abode has a colour print utility to avoid this issue. use Photoshop or Elements then there is a danger that colour management will be applied. My IMac has a shiny screen and I must admit that I cannot see what people worry about. I also print from a MacBook (matte). In sum, calibrate the monitor, get a printer profile and use colour management  via the software (ie, not the printer) and the results will be good.

Sorry if I have drifted from the original thread. I like my Mac for photography.

That's good to know. My major concern, as you have guessed is photography. I know a lot use macbook pro laptops for Lightroom, but had no idea how you could calibrate it. My concern is what I'm looking at on screen, as the problem for me is that if I can't see what I expect in front of me, I'll be unable to apply my own processing style. Still, if calibration done correctly does get around this, then it's a non issue.

Also, you just reminded me that I've forgotten to buy Lightroom 4 this month. You can tell how much photography I've done in the last 2 months