61–70 of 155 posts
Is 'backdoor' the correct term if the vulnerability does not originate from Apple?
Is there any diagnostic tool out there to determine if you've been infected?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A rootkit is a different beast. A backdoor is simply a (covert) way to gain remote access to a system. A rootkit involves being able to elevate user permissions such that you have full control over the computer. Rootkits also typically use such permissions to hide themselves from normal user accounts. I guess in a way you could see them as related, in that they both are access tools. A backdoor gets you remote access…
No, that's wrong. A rootkit is the thing you install once you have root - not a way to get root initially. It usually gives the attacker a means to access the machine in the future, even if the vulnerability she used is fixed in the future. Rootkits are designed to hide themselves. They are essentially attacker installed backdooors. A backdoor is basically a rootkit that is part of the original software as written by…
The connotation difference is the difference between getting hit with a 10mm and a 9mm. Negligible, as it's leaving a hole that you really don't want there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there any diagnostic tool out there to determine if you've been infected? From what I can tell, they posted the SHA256 of the offending binary under the IOCs section of that web page. So you should be able to do this in the root of your home directory to detect if such a file exists: # find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 shasum -a 256 | grep 664e0a048f61a76145b55d1f1a5714606953d69edccec5228017eb546049dc8c
Binary checksums are usually not very helpful for identifying malware. The fact that the binary they were looking at was called "unpacked" suggests that there would be packed versions out there, and they would have a different checksum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's wrong. A rootkit is the thing you install once you have root - not a way to get root initially. It usually gives the attacker a means to access the machine in the future, even if the vulnerability she used is fixed in the future. Rootkits are designed to hide themselves. They are essentially attacker installed backdooors. A backdoor is basically a rootkit that is part of the original software as written by…
No, that's wrong. Wikipedia has definitions that match my own knowledge, so i'll link and quote those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit "A rootkit is a collection of computer software, typically malicious, designed to enable access to a computer or areas of its software that would not otherwise be allowed (for example, to an unauthorized user) while at the same time masking its existence or the existence of othe…
"... an attacker can install it once they've obtained root or Administrator access."
Calling BO a backdoor is a major corruption of the word, as you loose the only word for describing intentionally weakened security - so that you may describe a thing which already has several more explicitly defining names: malware, trojan, dropper, etc.
Really interesting to see a cross-platform malware with audio and video support; a lot of non-malware has difficulty with that.
I feel the use of 'backdoor' here is misleading. The software described would usually be classified as an Advanced Persistent Threat [1] or Rootkit [2] Backdoor [3] usually refers to methods to sidestep authentication added by the vendor. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_persistent_threat 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backdoor_(computing)
Many commenters are pointing out that one possible definition of a rootkit is something that elevates privilege, but does not necessarily have network communications functions or a command and control server. But in recent times, almost all modern rootkits seen in the wild have some form of network control functionality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still say it! On a page on their website in 2016. And their paid AstroTurfers are here on hn, with the downvotes.
Me saying this is downvote-worthy in itself and I'll gladly take my lumps because I'm only adding to the noise, but let's break this down: (1) You claim that because someone wrote malware that requires root access to install, but can't be used to get root access to a system in the first place, that the vendor who makes that system should no longer publicly state (in their marketing materials no less) that they care a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Me saying this is downvote-worthy in itself and I'll gladly take my lumps because I'm only adding to the noise, but let's break this down: (1) You claim that because someone wrote malware that requires root access to install, but can't be used to get root access to a system in the first place, that the vendor who makes that system should no longer publicly state (in their marketing materials no less) that they care a…
This reply is a piece of art.